danbri: "serious doubt remains whether reasoning really adds something useful in the Web context. "
danbri: I couldn't disagree more.
danbri: Now this doesn't mean we expect user-facing search engines to be running OWL inference engines when servicing queries.
danbri: Even if only for schema checking, evolution, and mixing, OWL inference is useful.
danbri: And IFPs/keys allow for identity reasoning, which is where mashups will go when people get tired of blobs on maps...
mhausenblas: Michael is positive re reasoning and its value, it is rather the 20 year old DL-reasoning setup that makes him feel uncomfortable
danbri: Being long-established is not itself a crime. Turing machines and the 'net have been around decades. RDF is 11 now; SGML (aka XML Full) rather longer. And let's not get into how long logic, ontology and suchlike have been around.
danbri: I couldn't disagree more.
danbri: Now this doesn't mean we expect user-facing search engines to be running OWL inference engines when servicing queries.
danbri: Even if only for schema checking, evolution, and mixing, OWL inference is useful.
danbri: And IFPs/keys allow for identity reasoning, which is where mashups will go when people get tired of blobs on maps...
mhausenblas: Michael is positive re reasoning and its value, it is rather the 20 year old DL-reasoning setup that makes him feel uncomfortable
danbri: Being long-established is not itself a crime. Turing machines and the 'net have been around decades. RDF is 11 now; SGML (aka XML Full) rather longer. And let's not get into how long logic, ontology and suchlike have been around.
danbri: Rhymes with 'cheesy peas' so I like it already :)
danbri: Am trying to understand which kinds of literals it works with; do they need to be datatyped? or plain ok too?
mhausenblas: naaah, they still argue via reasoning for or against something. Michael shudders to think
danbri: Am trying to understand which kinds of literals it works with; do they need to be datatyped? or plain ok too?
mhausenblas: naaah, they still argue via reasoning for or against something. Michael shudders to think
mhausenblas: suggestions, comments and edits welcome :)
danbri: I wouldn't start by alluding to suggestions of foul play, even joking... ("Why are we doing this? Do we want to trick innocent microformats users into using RDFa? ")
danbri: Or by leaping in with talk of namespaces, URIs
danbri: Hmm how would I start? Tricky :)
danbri: Perhaps by mentioning that microformats gain much of their elegance and ease-of-publication (as well as some of their difficulties) through a close coupling of two key aspects. One is microformats as a notation; a set of patterns and conventions for making HTML that is readable as data. The other is microformats as vocabularies; the terms defined by hcard, xfn, hcal etc.
danbri: In the classic microformat approach, the HTML notations are custom designed for each vocabulary. This can improve human readability and peoples ability to learn a particular microformat. However it makes for hard work for parser writers, who have to update their software with each new descriptive vocabulary. It also can create difficulties around mixing and extending microformats.
danbri: RDFa is a technology that lives in the same landscape as microformats, but one which embodies different design tradeoffs. [...etc]
danbri: Does that help?
danbri: I wouldn't start by alluding to suggestions of foul play, even joking... ("Why are we doing this? Do we want to trick innocent microformats users into using RDFa? ")
danbri: Or by leaping in with talk of namespaces, URIs
danbri: Hmm how would I start? Tricky :)
danbri: Perhaps by mentioning that microformats gain much of their elegance and ease-of-publication (as well as some of their difficulties) through a close coupling of two key aspects. One is microformats as a notation; a set of patterns and conventions for making HTML that is readable as data. The other is microformats as vocabularies; the terms defined by hcard, xfn, hcal etc.
danbri: In the classic microformat approach, the HTML notations are custom designed for each vocabulary. This can improve human readability and peoples ability to learn a particular microformat. However it makes for hard work for parser writers, who have to update their software with each new descriptive vocabulary. It also can create difficulties around mixing and extending microformats.
danbri: RDFa is a technology that lives in the same landscape as microformats, but one which embodies different design tradeoffs. [...etc]
danbri: Does that help?
dajobe: may contain less bugs
danbri: It seems to find a rel=me to http://www.w3.org/ somewhere
danbri: Hmm :)