[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
John Cowan wrote:
> Jonathan Borden scripsit:
>
> > There isn;t much point in discussing either of these topics further,
they
> > are included in RDF for legacy purposes but left *undefined*. This is a
> > polite way of saying that both of the above are *useless* -- you can't
even
> > argue the topic, because the WD gives no meaning over which to argue --
the
> > ultimate in damned by faint praise.
>
> Umm, I think you are severely over-interpreting. It's quite common for
> a formal semantics to be incomplete, either because the omitted items
> are intractable, or because they're just too annoying to specify.
> That doesn't mean they aren't part of the deal.
>
I quoted you directly from the source. The RDF Semantics has ample prose
which describes the intention of the specification. The reification
vocabulary is assigned no special meaning by the RDF Semantics. This means
that you can just as easily define
<JohnCowanPrivate:Statement>
<JohnCowanPrivate:subject rdf:resource="http://example.org#subject"; />
<JohnCowanPrivate:predicate
rdf:resource="http://example.org#predicate"/>
<JohnCowanPrivate:object rdf:resource="http://example.org#object"/>
</JohnCowanPrivate:Statement>
and this would have just as much meaning as what the RDF reification
vocabulary would give you -- nothing specified by RDF -- that is, you are
left to your own devices to use the vocabulary as your private application
chooses. This is *not* something that is intended to promote interchange, or
to "share meaning". In particular there is no formal connection between such
"reifications" and any triple in an RDF knowledge base.
Jonathan
http://www.jonathanborden-md.com
http://www.erieneurosurgery.com
http://www.openhealth.org
|
