Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

>> I use RDF like a next-generation relational database and think that RDF >> could be sold to many people this way (there is possibly are larger audience >> for this than for ontologies, reasoning, etc.). Especially considering how >> No-SQL is currently taking off. This part needs some love an

RE: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On Behalf Of Nathan wrote on Friday, July 02: >Pat Hayes wrote: >> On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Yves Raimond wrote: >>> "A literal may be the object of an RDF statement, but not the subject >>> or the predicate." >> >> Just to clarify, this is a purely syntactic restriction. Allowing >> literals i

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On 2010/7/1 22:35, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Yves Raimond wrote: Hello Kingsley! [snip] IMHO an emphatic NO. RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where "Subjects" have Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many resolve to Structured Representations of Referent

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On 2010/7/1 22:42, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Nathan wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote: On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Dan Brickley wrote: [snip] This is the second time in a few hours that a thread has degenerated into talk of accusations and insults. I don't care who started it. Sometimes email just isn't the best way to communicate. If people are feeling this way about an email discussion, it might be worth

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Jeremy Carroll wrote: >  On 7/2/2010 12:00 PM, Dan Brickley wrote: >> >> Or maybe we should all just take a weekend break, mull things over for >> a couple of days, and start fresh on monday? That's my plan anyhow... > > Yeah, maybe some of us could  meet up in some

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On 7/2/2010 12:00 PM, Dan Brickley wrote: Or maybe we should all just take a weekend break, mull things over for a couple of days, and start fresh on monday? That's my plan anyhow... Yeah, maybe some of us could meet up in some sunny place and sit in an office, maybe at Stanford - just like

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

[snip] This is the second time in a few hours that a thread has degenerated into talk of accusations and insults. I don't care who started it. Sometimes email just isn't the best way to communicate. If people are feeling this way about an email discussion, it might be worth the respective parties

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Pat Hayes wrote: On Jul 2, 2010, at 6:52 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jul 1, 2010, at 9:42 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Nathan w

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On Jul 2, 2010, at 6:52 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jul 1, 2010, at 9:42 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Nathan wrote: Pat Hayes w

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Richard Cyganiak wrote: Hi Yves, [trimmed cc list] On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:15, Yves Raimond wrote: I am not arguing for each vendor to implement that. I am arguing for removing this arbitrary limitation from the RDF spec. Also marked as an issue since 2000: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Henry Story wrote: On 2 Jul 2010, at 15:22, Kingsley Idehen wrote: I think, the main confusion comes from the use of the term "object" for two entirely different things: In the case of "O-R-O", it refers to (semantic) individuals. In the case of "S-P-O", it refers to a position in a (syntact

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Michael Schneider wrote: Kingsley Idehen wrote: So why: Subject-Predicate-Object (SPO) everywhere re. RDF? O-R-O reflects what you've just described. Like many of the RDF oddities (playing out nicely in this thread), you have an O-R-O but everyone talks about S-P-O. "Subject" has implici

RE: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Kingsley Idehen wrote: >So why: Subject-Predicate-Object (SPO) everywhere re. RDF? > >O-R-O reflects what you've just described. > >Like many of the RDF oddities (playing out nicely in this thread), you >have an O-R-O but everyone talks about S-P-O. > >"Subject" has implicit meaning, it lends its

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 12:42 +0200, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > Hi Yves, > On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:15, Yves Raimond wrote: > > I am not arguing for each vendor to implement that. I am arguing for > > removing this arbitrary limitation from the RDF spec. Also marked as > > an issue since 2000: > > http:/

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Hi Richard! > > [trimmed cc list] > > On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:15, Yves Raimond wrote: >> >> I am not arguing for each vendor to implement that. I am arguing for >> removing this arbitrary limitation from the RDF spec. Also marked as >> an issue since 2000: >> http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#r

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Pat Hayes wrote: On Jul 1, 2010, at 9:42 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Nathan wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On 2 Jul 2010, at 12:42, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > Hi Yves, > > [trimmed cc list] > > On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:15, Yves Raimond wrote: >> I am not arguing for each vendor to implement that. I am arguing for >> removing this arbitrary limitation from the RDF spec. Also marked as >> an issue since 20

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Hi Yves, [trimmed cc list] On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:15, Yves Raimond wrote: I am not arguing for each vendor to implement that. I am arguing for removing this arbitrary limitation from the RDF spec. Also marked as an issue since 2000: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literalsubjects

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 08:50 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote: > [cc's trimmed] > > I'm with Jeremy here, the problem's economic not technical. > > If we could introduce subjects-as-literals in a way that: > (a) doesn't invalidate any existing RDF, and > (b) doesn't permit the generation of RDF/XML that

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Yves, On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Yves Raimond wrote: > First: this is *not* a dirty hack. > > "Brickley" bif:contains "ckley" is a perfectly valid thing to say. > You could, today, use data: URIs to represent literals with no change to any RDF system. Ian

RE: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Pat Hayes wrote: >Just to clarify, this is a purely syntactic restriction. Allowing >literals in subject position would require **no change at all** to the >RDF semantics. Indeed. And this is probably one of the reasons why several RDF-related standards have already adopted literal subjects. So

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Hello Ivan! On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:50 AM, Ivan Mikhailov wrote: > Hello Yves, > >> > It's a virtuoso function surfaced as a predicate. >> > "magic predicate" was an initial moniker used at creation time. >> > "bif:contains" doesn't exist in pure triple form etc.. >> >> Why couldn't it? For exam

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

[cc's trimmed] I'm with Jeremy here, the problem's economic not technical. If we could introduce subjects-as-literals in a way that: (a) doesn't invalidate any existing RDF, and (b) doesn't permit the generation of RDF/XML that existing applications cannot parse, then I think there's a possib

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Pat Hayes wrote: On Jul 2, 2010, at 12:07 AM, Nathan wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:49 PM, Nathan wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Yves Raimond wrote: "A literal may be the object of an RDF statement, but not the subject or the predicate." Just to clarify

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On Jul 2, 2010, at 12:07 AM, Nathan wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:49 PM, Nathan wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Yves Raimond wrote: "A literal may be the object of an RDF statement, but not the subject or the predicate." Just to clarify, this is a pure

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Pat Hayes wrote: On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:49 PM, Nathan wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Yves Raimond wrote: "A literal may be the object of an RDF statement, but not the subject or the predicate." Just to clarify, this is a purely syntactic restriction. Allowing literals i

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:49 PM, Nathan wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Yves Raimond wrote: "A literal may be the object of an RDF statement, but not the subject or the predicate." Just to clarify, this is a purely syntactic restriction. Allowing literals in subject posit

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Hello Yves, > > It's a virtuoso function surfaced as a predicate. > > "magic predicate" was an initial moniker used at creation time. > > "bif:contains" doesn't exist in pure triple form etc.. > > Why couldn't it? For example, you may want to express exactly what > triple lead you to give a parti

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Pat Hayes wrote: On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Yves Raimond wrote: "A literal may be the object of an RDF statement, but not the subject or the predicate." Just to clarify, this is a purely syntactic restriction. Allowing literals in subject position would require **no change at all** to the

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On Jul 1, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Yves Raimond wrote: On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Henry Story wrote: On 1 Jul 2010, at 16:35, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Yves Raimond wrote: Hello Kingsley! [snip] IMHO an emphatic NO. RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where "Subjects" h

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On Jul 1, 2010, at 9:42 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Nathan wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote: On Wed, 30 Jun

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On Jul 1, 2010, at 3:38 AM, Henry Story wrote: On 30 Jun 2010, at 21:09, Pat Hayes wrote: For example I've heard people saying that it encourages bad 'linked data' practise by using examples like { 'London' a x:Place } - whereas I'd immediately counter with { x:London a 'Place' }. S

Re: The Ordered List Ontology

On Jul 1, 2010, at 2:16 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote: Well, JSON is a syntax for serializing some kinds of data used in programming languages; it's not a programming language itself. I expect W3C will be doing some more work in bridging RDF and JSON soon; my most recent (unofficial) attemp

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Henry Story wrote: > > On 1 Jul 2010, at 18:18, Yves Raimond wrote: > >>> >>> In any case RDF Semantics does, I believe, >>> allow literals in subject position. It is just that many many syntaxes >>> don't allow that to be expressed, >> >> >> It doesn't seem to be a

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On 1 Jul 2010, at 18:18, Yves Raimond wrote: >> >> In any case RDF Semantics does, I believe, >> allow literals in subject position. It is just that many many syntaxes >> don't allow that to be expressed, > > > It doesn't seem to be allowed in the RDF semantics: > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-conc

Typo Fix: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Kingsley Idehen wrote: Yves Raimond wrote: Hello! IMHO an emphatic NO. RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where "Subjects" have Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many resolve to Structured Representations of Referents carried or borne by Descriptor

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Yves Raimond wrote: Hello! IMHO an emphatic NO. RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where "Subjects" have Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many resolve to Structured Representations of Referents carried or borne by Descriptor Docs/Resources). An "Identi

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > Henry Story wrote: >> >> On 1 Jul 2010, at 16:35, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >> >> >>> >>> Yves Raimond wrote: >>> Hello Kingsley! [snip] > > IMHO an emphatic NO. > > RDF is about constructing s

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Henry Story wrote: On 1 Jul 2010, at 16:35, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Yves Raimond wrote: Hello Kingsley! [snip] IMHO an emphatic NO. RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where "Subjects" have Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many resolve

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Henry Story wrote: > > On 1 Jul 2010, at 16:35, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > >> Yves Raimond wrote: >>> Hello Kingsley! >>> >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>> IMHO an emphatic NO. RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where "Subjects" have Identifier

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Hello! >> >>> >>> IMHO an emphatic NO. >>> >>> RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where "Subjects" have >>> Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many resolve to >>> Structured Representations of Referents carried or borne by Descriptor >>> Docs/Resources). An "Id

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On 1 Jul 2010, at 16:35, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > Yves Raimond wrote: >> Hello Kingsley! >> >> >> [snip] >> >> >>> IMHO an emphatic NO. >>> >>> RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where "Subjects" have >>> Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many resolve t

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Nathan wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote: On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100 Dan Brickley wrote: That said, i'

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Yves Raimond wrote: Hello Kingsley! [snip] IMHO an emphatic NO. RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where "Subjects" have Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many resolve to Structured Representations of Referents carried or borne by Descriptor Docs/Reso

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Hello! On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 3:41 AM, Pat Hayes wrote: > > On Jun 30, 2010, at 4:25 PM, Toby Inkster wrote: > >> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:18:25 -0700 >> Jeremy Carroll wrote: >> >>> Here are the reasons I voted this way: >>> >>> - it will mess up RDF/XML >> >> No it won't - it will just mean that

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Hello, Please, don't extend the existing model, for two reasons. >From implementor's POV, arbitrary literals are bad for any sort of indexing. >From AI specialist's POV, literals are simply not subjects. Can a number or a string _act_? Can you provide a living specimen of it? The feature is use

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Hello Kingsley! [snip] > > IMHO an emphatic NO. > > RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where "Subjects" have > Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many resolve to > Structured Representations of Referents carried or borne by Descriptor > Docs/Resources). An "I

RE: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Nathan wrote: >re OWL DL, does it have to consider every triple in a 'graph'? No, and it cannot do so in general. Strictly speaking, OWL DL doesn't even have a notion of RDF triples or RDF graphs. OWL DL "thinks" in terms of constructs such as axioms and class expressions. The genuine "abstract"

RE: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology] On Jun 30, 2010, at 3:12 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote: >> Intuitively, I would expect each subject literal to have a unique >> identity. For example, I would want to annotate a particular >> instance of "abc&quo

RE: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Henry Story wrote: > On 30 Jun 2010, at 21:09, Pat Hayes wrote: >> The Description Logic police are still in charge:-) > >I agree that literals can be subjects. In any case they are, because you >just can take an inverse function from a thing to a string, and you have >it. I guess, the Descriptio

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On 30 Jun 2010, at 21:09, Pat Hayes wrote: >> >> For example I've heard people saying that it encourages bad 'linked data' >> practise by using examples like { 'London' a x:Place } - whereas I'd >> immediately counter with { x:London a 'Place' }. >> >> Surely all of the subjects as literals a

Re: The Ordered List Ontology

On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 01:53 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote: > On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:24 PM, Harry Halpin wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: > >> > >> On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:15 PM, Dan Brickley wrote: > >> > >>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: > > On

Re: The Ordered List Ontology

On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:24 PM, Harry Halpin wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:15 PM, Dan Brickley wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote: On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100 Dan

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On Jun 30, 2010, at 3:12 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote: Intuitively, I would expect each subject literal to have a unique identity. For example, I would want to annotate a particular instance of "abc" and not all literals "abc". Wouldn't the latter treatment make literals-as-subjects less app

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On Jun 30, 2010, at 4:25 PM, Toby Inkster wrote: On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:18:25 -0700 Jeremy Carroll wrote: Here are the reasons I voted this way: - it will mess up RDF/XML No it won't - it will just mean that RDF/XML is only capable of representing a subset of RDF graphs. And guess what? T

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On Jun 30, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Nathan wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote: On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100 Dan Brickley wrote: That said, i'm sure sameAs and

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On Jun 30, 2010, at 2:52 PM, David Booth wrote: On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 14:09 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Nathan wrote: [ . . . ] Surely all of the subjects as literals arguments can be countered with 'walk round it', and further good practise could be aided by a few

RE: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Jirí Procházka wrote: >I wonder, when using owl:sameAs or related, to "name" literals to be >able to say other useful thing about them in normal triples (datatype, >language, etc) does it break OWL DL Literals in owl:sameAs axioms are not allowed in OWL (1/2) DL. owl:sameAs can only be used to eq

Re: The Ordered List Ontology

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: > > On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:15 PM, Dan Brickley wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: >>> >>> On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote: >>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100 Dan Brickley wrote: > T

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Jeremy Carroll wrote: Jiří Procházka wrote: I wonder, when using owl:sameAs or related, to "name" literals to be able to say other useful thing about them in normal triples (datatype, language, etc) does it break OWL DL yes it does (or any other formalism which is base of some ontology exte

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Jiří Procházka wrote: I wonder, when using owl:sameAs or related, to "name" literals to be able to say other useful thing about them in normal triples (datatype, language, etc) does it break OWL DL yes it does (or any other formalism which is base of some ontology extending RDF semantics)?

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Toby Inkster wrote: On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:18:25 -0700 Jeremy Carroll wrote: Here are the reasons I voted this way: - it will mess up RDF/XML No it won't - it will just mean that RDF/XML is only capable of representing a subset of RDF graphs. And guess what? That's already the case. Yes!

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:18:25 -0700 Jeremy Carroll wrote: > Here are the reasons I voted this way: > > - it will mess up RDF/XML No it won't - it will just mean that RDF/XML is only capable of representing a subset of RDF graphs. And guess what? That's already the case. -- Toby A Inkster

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Nathan wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote: On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100 Dan Brickley wrote: That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however it is called) claims could probably make a me

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Nathan wrote: Kingsley Idehen wrote: Nathan wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote: On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100 Dan Brickley wrote: That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however it is called) claims could probably make a mess, if adde

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Nathan wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote: On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100 Dan Brickley wrote: That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however it is called) claims c

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Kingsley Idehen wrote: Nathan wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote: On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100 Dan Brickley wrote: That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however it is called) claims could probably make a mess, if added or removed...

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

David Booth wrote: I agree, but at the W3C RDF Next Steps workshop over the weekend, I was surprised to find that there was substantial sentiment *against* having literals as subjects. A straw poll showed that of those at the workshop, this is how people felt about having an RDF working group c

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Intuitively, I would expect each subject literal to have a unique identity. For example, I would want to annotate a particular instance of "abc" and not all literals "abc". Wouldn't the latter treatment make literals-as-subjects less appealing? Re. the DL police: I use RDF like a next-generatio

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 14:09 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote: > On Jun 30, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Nathan wrote: [ . . . ] > > Surely all of the subjects as literals arguments can be countered > > with 'walk round it', and further good practise could be aided by a > > few simple notes on best practise for lin

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On 30 June 2010 21:14, Pat Hayes wrote: > > On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > > Nathan wrote: >> >>> Pat Hayes wrote: >>> On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote: > On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100 > Dan Brickley wrote: > >> That said, i'm

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On 06/30/2010 09:09 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: > > On Jun 30, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Nathan wrote: > >> Pat Hayes wrote: >>> On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote: On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100 Dan Brickley wrote: > That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or howeve

Re: The Ordered List Ontology

On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:15 PM, Dan Brickley wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote: On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100 Dan Brickley wrote: That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however it is called) claim

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Nathan wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote: On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100 Dan Brickley wrote: That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however it is called) claims could probably ma

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

On Jun 30, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Nathan wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote: On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100 Dan Brickley wrote: That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however it is called) claims could probably make a mess, if added or

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Nathan wrote: Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote: On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100 Dan Brickley wrote: That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however it is called) claims could probably make a mess, if added or removed... You can create some p

Re: The Ordered List Ontology

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: > > On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote: > >> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100 >> Dan Brickley wrote: >> >>> That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however it is >>> called) claims could probably make a mess, if added

Re: The Ordered List Ontology

I wondered who'd be first to mention lazy-evaluation FP :) (My example would have been in Haskell) Barry On 30/06/10 20:01, Hugh Glaser wrote: On 30/06/2010 12:45, "Toby Inkster" wrote: On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100 Dan Brickley wrote: That said, i'm sure sameAs and di

Re: The Ordered List Ontology

On 30/06/2010 12:45, "Toby Inkster" wrote: > On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100 > Dan Brickley wrote: > >> That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however it is >> called) claims could probably make a mess, if added or removed... > > You can create some pretty awesome messes e

Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

Pat Hayes wrote: On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote: On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100 Dan Brickley wrote: That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however it is called) claims could probably make a mess, if added or removed... You can create some pretty awesome m

Re: The Ordered List Ontology

On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote: On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100 Dan Brickley wrote: That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however it is called) claims could probably make a mess, if added or removed... You can create some pretty awesome messes even with

Re: The Ordered List Ontology

On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100 Dan Brickley wrote: > That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however it is > called) claims could probably make a mess, if added or removed... You can create some pretty awesome messes even without OWL: # An rdf:List that loops around..

Re: The Ordered List Ontology

Hi Aldo, > Hi Bob, I like the basic idea here because it matches a real modelling need > to represent ordered collections/lists. > A vocabulary for that can be submitted as a design patterns on ODP [1] for > public utility. An OWL ontology describing ordered/non-ordered collections [1] has been

Re: The Ordered List Ontology

On 28 Jun 2010, at 09:51, Graham Klyne wrote: > Bob, > > A desired feature that led to the current rdf:List structure is the ability > to "close" a list - so some separate sub-graph can't "silently" add > properties not in the original. Also that consumers could notice when some intermedi

Re: The Ordered List Ontology

Bob, A desired feature that led to the current rdf:List structure is the ability to "close" a list - so some separate sub-graph can't "silently" add properties not in the original. Your pattern might allow this through additon of a "maxSlotIndex" property on "olo:OrderedList" (not suggesting

Re: The Ordered List Ontology

Hi Aldo, Hi Silvio, Thanks a lot, Silvio, for the Colletion Ontology. I oversaw this ontology somehow. Am 28.06.2010 16:29, schrieb Aldo Gangemi: Yes, I like the SWAN ontology ... I remember sometimes ago I wanted to modularize it and submit the modules as design patterns :). Consider that,

Re: The Ordered List Ontology

Yes, I like the SWAN ontology ... I remember sometimes ago I wanted to modularize it and submit the modules as design patterns :). Consider that, besides the typing problem in OLO, there is a difference between OLO and SWAN in that OLO allows for "slots" that enable a designer to assign indexes

Re: The Ordered List Ontology

Hi Bob, I like the basic idea here because it matches a real modelling need to represent ordered collections/lists. A vocabulary for that can be submitted as a design patterns on ODP [1] for public utility. However, why do you want to represent ordered lists, slots and items as [ rdf:type owl:C

Re: The Ordered List Ontology

Hi Graham, thanks a lot for this suggestion. I spent some more time in making this concept a bit more solid [1,2]. Here the features that I added/changed in the v0.3 proposal (+ for added, ~for modified): + olo:next - to associate the next slot of a slot in an ordered list ~ olo:length - to

Re: The Ordered List Ontology

Am 28.06.2010 10:17, schrieb Barry Norton: Bob, I wrote a similar representation in WSML-Flight [1] a few years ago [2], where it was possible to construct an axiom that for a list of length n there should exist unique values for each of the indices 1-n, and no others. I doubt that this is possi

Re: The Ordered List Ontology

Bob, I wrote a similar representation in WSML-Flight [1] a few years ago [2], where it was possible to construct an axiom that for a list of length n there should exist unique values for each of the indices 1-n, and no others. I doubt that this is possible here (without RIF), is it? Barry [

The Ordered List Ontology

Hello everybody, in a longer discussion in the Music Ontology mailing list about how to model a playlist, Samer Abdallah came up with a very good proposal[1] of modelling a sequence/ordered list (as recently also discussed at RDFNext Workshop[2]) as semantic graph (in RDF). So, here we go: -