7 comments

• 

  PhilDawes

  3 years ago

  This description capability even allows JAM*VAT to import RDF with no loss of information (i.e. you could export it back into RDF if required). It does this by tagging each human-readable symbol with the URI used in the RDF.
  
  E.g. the URI:<http://phildawes.net/phil> gets translated into the symbol 'phil', and the statement:
  
  
  phil tag http://phildawes.net/phil
  
  
  (This tags the symbol 'phil' with the URI). The JAM*VAT aggregator uses the 'tag' property to help manage identity between graphs. 'Tag' in JAM*VAT fulfils a similar role to a tag in del.icio.us - i.e. another symbol that can be used to categorise the target.
  reply
• 

  Laurent Szyster

  3 years ago

  URI are not appropriate for the Semantic Web, Tim Berner Lee wrote that himself back in 2001:
  
  http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/HTTP-URI.html
  
  section 2.5 - Extra info with URI:
  
  "Effectively, the URI scheme has now failed to identify anything by itself."
  
  This issue and others have since then not been addressed, although context was forced in RDF store implementation and semantic patched on RDF/XML with Named Graphs.
  
  As a data model for the Semantic Web, RDF triple is just broken, it is too simple.
  
  Have a look a:
  
  http://laurentszyster.be/blog/public-names/
  
  and
  
  http://laurentszyster.be/blog/public-rdf/
  
  then tell me what you think.
  reply
• 

  PhilDawes

  3 years ago

  Hi Laurent,
  
  I've read your pages, but I'm afraid I'm not sure if I understand what you are getting at.
  
  Am I correct in thinking that you want to replace a URI with a string of associated words. Systems then disambiguate the meaning via the connected set of words?
  
  e.g. 5:apple,8:computer ?
  
  Also, why bother with the netstring numbers? - for the sake of simplicity, why not (apple,computer) or something?
  reply
• 

  Laurent Szyster

  3 years ago

  "Also, why bother with the netstring numbers? - for the sake of simplicity, why not (apple,computer) or something?"
  
  Because articulated text is not made of sequence of byte strings, but like you understood as *sets* of text. For instance, the sentence:
  
  Steve Jobs is the creator of the Apple Computer
  
  may be articulated (considering "the", "is" and "of" as
  articulators and with CRLF added for readability) as the Public Name:
  
  15:
  5:Steve,
  4:Jobs,
  ,
  19:
  5:Apple,
  8:Computer,
  ,
  7:creator,
  
  Sorted sequence of netstring effectively represent the three sets of text:
  
  ((Steve, Jobs) creator (Apple, Computer))
  
  and actually preserve the semantic between those sets expressed by the original text articulation.
  
  Public Names have many other interesting properties: they can be used as URI, can be used to build fast indexes and can encode any 8-bit byte strings.
  reply
• 

  Chimezie

  3 years ago

  Perhaps an appropriate, and concrete subset of the SW and open systems should be outlined. A closed system (which controls the production of identification - by URI or any alternative means- as well as content), which does *not* automatically apply entailment rules (not even the 'simple' entailment rules as defined in RDF-MT) could be such a subset. Then finally, simplify the model to consist only of the following parts:
  
  Graph
  Context (or collection of statements)
  Statement
  Identifiers (URIs)
  Literals
  
  voila, you have RDF-Lite (clearly distinguished from the SW). Now the syntax for repsenting such a subset would also be much simpler, but an orthogonal issue to the underlying model.
  reply
• 

  虚拟主机

  3 years ago

  I thinking about RDF and Topic Maps See also
  reply
• 

  Like

  1 year ago

  When thinking about the general direction my (rather slow moving) Semantic Tagging stuff should head into, it became obvious pretty quickly that moving from facet-value-pairs to RDF-like subject-property-object-triples is the direction of choice. Vapou…
  reply