Hi, (01)
>> My general thesis concerns the use of prepositions in predicates (which
>> goes to your DO/IDO critique) which are ObjectPropertys; rdf:about is a
>> fine example, as its present tense is implied, so the property is more
>> clearly named "is:about", yes, in a verbal namespace called "is".
>> rdf:Property is not a predicate so it should not be listed here at all.
>> xml:lang is an artifact that can be equally represented with a link to a
>> Language object. rdfs:label can point to a separate resource that is a
>> Name via a predicate named has:this, rdfs:comment may be linked
>> similarly through has:this to a Description resource. rdf:resource is an
>> artifact of its age-old encoding (XML). rdfs:domain and rdfs:range are
>> the core of the intellectual problem both you and I have about the RDF,
>> so I'd rather talk about them separately. rdfs:subPropertyOf may just as
>> easily be is:of. (02)
I guess you are confusing namespaces with linguistic expressions.
"is:about" would require an is namespace. How would id possibly help to
rename a human understandable label such as rdfs:subPropertyOf into an
overly generic is:of? is of what? is of blue color? (03)
One way to address your issues is to join the W3C RDF working group and
contribute to their work to jointly improve RDF. (04)
Best,
Krzysztof (05)
On 01/23/2014 08:55 AM, John McClure wrote:
> On 1/22/2014 10:35 PM, doug foxvog wrote:
>> I.e., there are two meanings, and the same word is used for each.
> I've since discovered the term 'predicator' was coined to identify
> predicate-in-the-FOL sense, to distinguish it from
> predicate-in-the-grammatical-sense. See here in Gold 2010
> <http://linguistics-ontology.org/gold/2010/Predicator> or from
> FreeDictionary:
>
> /predicator///(ˈprɛdɪˌkeɪtə).*1. * (Grammar) (in systemic grammar)
> the part of a sentence or clause containing the verbal group; one of
> the four or five major components into which clauses can be divided,
> the others being subject, object, adjunct, and (in some versions of
> the grammar) complement.
>
>> This second meaning is that which we are using in ontologies. Note
>> that in this meaning, the predicate "corresponds mainly" to verbs --
>> is different from saying that the predicate is a verb.
> The Wikipedia text later says there are some (unspecified) exceptions.
> But exceptions are not the rule. The rule is that predicators are
> (mainly, usually, generally, most often, expectantly; that is, /as a
> rule/) verbs. And "corresponds" in this sentence was clearly intended to
> refer to the concept of a predicate corresponds to the verbs and its
> auxiliaries in a sentence, that is, the former is derived from the latter.
>
> <snip/>
>>> If you say the latter, then WHERE ARE THE VERBS
> <snip/>
>> Thus, the VERBS are the binary predicates used in each embedded sentence.
>> * rdf:about
>> * rdf:Property
>> * xml:lang
>> * rdfs:label
>> * rdfs:comment
>> * rdf:resource
>> * rdfs:domain
>> * rdfs:range
>> * rdfs:subPropertyOf
> My general thesis concerns the use of prepositions in predicates (which
> goes to your DO/IDO critique) which are ObjectPropertys; rdf:about is a
> fine example, as its present tense is implied, so the property is more
> clearly named "is:about", yes, in a verbal namespace called "is".
> rdf:Property is not a predicate so it should not be listed here at all.
> xml:lang is an artifact that can be equally represented with a link to a
> Language object. rdfs:label can point to a separate resource that is a
> Name via a predicate named has:this, rdfs:comment may be linked
> similarly through has:this to a Description resource. rdf:resource is an
> artifact of its age-old encoding (XML). rdfs:domain and rdfs:range are
> the core of the intellectual problem both you and I have about the RDF,
> so I'd rather talk about them separately. rdfs:subPropertyOf may just as
> easily be is:of.
>
> These are not mere word games. The nounal choices made by RDF/S became
> the predominate design pattern for all subsequent RDF ontologies. The
> consequence is utterly wretched: ontologies are twice the size they need
> to be, with made-up camel-cased techno words -- reuse absolutely sucks
> and SMEs are justifiably repelled.
>> - why do we see predicates defined like
>> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&p3p;purposeOptIn">
>> Because of the syntax used.
> syntax is not the issue. It is nouns versus verbs and prepositions. The
> number of arguments is important but it's not the issue here either.
>
> <snip/>
> Thanks for the reply/jmc
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2014/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> (06)
--
Krzysztof Janowicz (07)
Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
5806 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060 (08)
Email: jano@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/
Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net (09)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2014/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (010)
|