[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Webby objects

To: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:47:04 -0800
Message-id: <A2C71C09-F2B1-44BA-92B4-DB4FE15312BD@xxxxxxx>
John, I am as a matter of policy ignoring all rants about how almost everyone 
got almost everything wrong, but I am puzzled by one thing you say:    (01)

On Nov 15, 2012, at 7:08 AM, John F Sowa wrote:    (02)

> EB
>> In a language like RDF, the stated semantics of the use of a URI term is
>> that the term designates some concept and the URI can be dereferenced to
>> some resource that facilitates our understanding of that concept.  There
>> one can talk about fidelity, because the intrinsic semantics of the link
>> is well-defined.
> Unfortunately, RDF uses untyped triples of URIs.  You need to add more
> triples to specify what each of those URIs points to.  That's where
> RDFS comes in with a small set of agreed tags.  An even better notation
> would used typed triples, such as
>    {T1:V1, T2:V2, T3:V3}
> This could be translated to RDF, but it would expand to five triples.
> So the type labels often get lost along the way.
>     (03)

What?? The Web does not a "type" to specify what a URI points to. URIs are Web 
addresses in themselves (sometimes a bit more, but *at least* a Web address.)     (04)

What 'types' are you talking about here?    (05)

Pat    (06)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J    (07)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>