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)
|