Semantic Web Interest Group IRC Scratchpad

Welcome to the Semantic Web Interest Group scratchpad generated automatically from discussions on IRC at Freenode channel #swig 2001-2018 approx by the chump bot.

Nearby: IRC logs | semantic-web list | W3C Wiki (Recent changes) | delicious swigbot

last updated at 2003-06-27 20:24
jordan: Provides explanations for reasoning on the Semantic Web, independent (theoretically) of particular reasoner or set of axioms
DanC: take a look at an example
jordan: See Stanford KSL for more info
 
jimH: haven't had achance to look at it yet, but seemed worth looking at
jimH: you'll need to click on the button called "Semantic Translation"
jimH: or follow the direct link to this schema
 
DanC: danbri, 25 Jun 2003
bitsko: I don't believe it's a matter of vocabularies. Dublin Core, for example, has a well defined model for either use or normative derivation of their vocabulary.
bitsko: Also, many "just XML" proponents believe the re-usability of vocabularies is inherent in XML Namespaces, and they're not wrong.
bitsko: Where RDF really starts making sense doesn't get mentioned until about 2/3s the way down, and then only indirectly, "data merging".
bitsko: RDF is like a world-wide distributed relational database, except the relations are easier, the entities aren't fixed or static, entity and property types are derivable, and distribution is inherent to the architecture. Re-use of vocabulary is a "bonus".
bitsko: I was recently discussing with a "just XML" proponent (Hi Joe!) where he felt that the "just XML model" was as capable, given the right standardization effort, as the RDF graph abstraction, and I'm not sure yet he's wrong.
 
 
curious, why can URIs be relative in content but we can't have qnames in content?
 
Created by the Daily Chump bot. Hosted by PlanetRDF.