Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Jimmy Cerra
Is this you? Claim Profile »
3 år dage siden
in URIs make metadata complicated on Phil Dawes' Stuff
I've come to a few different conclusions regarding the above assertions:
(1) Why can't you use blank nodes if you can't use URI References? Resources don't need to be named, and sometimes (like in a database-like environment) most resources will be unnammed.
If you are willing to step up to OWL, then with inverse-functional properties you can still identify things with a "public key" like structure. However, you can do that anyway with any practical RDF application too.
Also, minting URI References are easy. Here's a URIRef: "data:Jimmy_Cerra". It is a little different from english, but we are working with computer languages not english. Would those people complain about writing their words in languages like Japanese; so are those people having reasonable expetations?
Also, the only requirement is that URI References are semantically uniform across the graphs you use it in. Problems happen when you merge graphs that have different semantics with the same URI Reference, but sometimes the types of graphs merged are small and managable.
If you have to merge with large numbers of graphs or with the whole Semantic Web for all of eternity, then I can see where minging URI References is a problem. But that is a social problem with naming itself and not RDF.
(2) Yes, and no. I've come to the conclusion that the only way to understand the semantics of anything is to ask the author (i.e. human documentation). There is no way to do so via computers. This is the same since the dawn of internet time (from the RFC specs to XHTML to the Atom Publication Format).
That's one reason nobody likes DTDs, RELAX NG, XML Schema, OWL (sometimes), and others to specify semantics. You can't do so completely for most non-trivial applications, and all those validation technologies are only hints. That's also why everyone loves XML Schema Datatypes: those elements specify semantics rather than provide a framework for specifying semantics.
(3) Just because some people get confused doesn't mean that others don't. I understand the differences, as to the people I explain them to. Should we throw away calculus because some people don't understand it?
(4) See (1).
I used to be really bugged by those problems... but I think I've found enlightenment. The best way to write semantic web software is to assume, like Socrates and Decartes, that "To know that you do not know is true wisdom". I.E. Assume the semantics of nothing in any context and look it up or ask the URI owner.
(1) Why can't you use blank nodes if you can't use URI References? Resources don't need to be named, and sometimes (like in a database-like environment) most resources will be unnammed.
If you are willing to step up to OWL, then with inverse-functional properties you can still identify things with a "public key" like structure. However, you can do that anyway with any practical RDF application too.
Also, minting URI References are easy. Here's a URIRef: "data:Jimmy_Cerra". It is a little different from english, but we are working with computer languages not english. Would those people complain about writing their words in languages like Japanese; so are those people having reasonable expetations?
Also, the only requirement is that URI References are semantically uniform across the graphs you use it in. Problems happen when you merge graphs that have different semantics with the same URI Reference, but sometimes the types of graphs merged are small and managable.
If you have to merge with large numbers of graphs or with the whole Semantic Web for all of eternity, then I can see where minging URI References is a problem. But that is a social problem with naming itself and not RDF.
(2) Yes, and no. I've come to the conclusion that the only way to understand the semantics of anything is to ask the author (i.e. human documentation). There is no way to do so via computers. This is the same since the dawn of internet time (from the RFC specs to XHTML to the Atom Publication Format).
That's one reason nobody likes DTDs, RELAX NG, XML Schema, OWL (sometimes), and others to specify semantics. You can't do so completely for most non-trivial applications, and all those validation technologies are only hints. That's also why everyone loves XML Schema Datatypes: those elements specify semantics rather than provide a framework for specifying semantics.
(3) Just because some people get confused doesn't mean that others don't. I understand the differences, as to the people I explain them to. Should we throw away calculus because some people don't understand it?
(4) See (1).
I used to be really bugged by those problems... but I think I've found enlightenment. The best way to write semantic web software is to assume, like Socrates and Decartes, that "To know that you do not know is true wisdom". I.E. Assume the semantics of nothing in any context and look it up or ask the URI owner.
4 år dage siden
in need a name... on Phil Dawes' Stuff
Paperboy? Datalore? Tumbleweed? Paradata? Paradigm? Deep Thought? 6 by 9?
4 år dage siden
in can we remove the need for ordered collections? on Phil Dawes' Stuff
I don't think I agree. Right now RDF is to directed graphs is like what S-expressions are to lists. If the order of statements was significant then it would drifting a lot further away from that ideal. Yet, it is the directed graph intepretation which makes RDF more useful for some types of data modeling than plain-old XML. Besides, it is too late to change RDF significantly. Too many applications already depend on the current interpretation.
