-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Am 17.11.2015 um 15:40 schrieb Denenberg, Ray:
> Thomas - I take your point about compete vs. incomplete description
> with respect to "RDF representation", but I'm not using it in that
> context, but rather in the context of: if you dereference a web
> resource, you get a representation of that resource; there may be many
> representations, one of which may be RDF. NOT to imply that that
> representation is complete.
If I dereference <http://slideplayer.com/slide/3350892/> I get some
visual content and the description for that may or may not be somewhere
on the web.
I mean, this is how the web started: Providing means to access
resources, not their descriptions.
> An RDF property may be a datatype property or an object property. A
> datatype property takes a literal for its object (Quotes). An object
> property takes an "individual" for its object (braces). "Individual" a
> in, a member of an RDF class. An individual always has an RDF
> description (or in your terminology, you can always make an RDF
> statement about it).
/Predicates/ of RDF statements are called /properties/. They are denoted
/Literals/ (only admitted in object position of statements) are always
associated with a datatype. These are denoted by IRIs and for some
more central datatypes the IRIs to use are prescribed.
According to the RDF Scheme specification Resources may be divided
into classes. If we do so, we may state that using the rdf:type
By means of the rdfs vocabulary we can craft statements that the object
of a given statement is of class rdfs:Literal and of a certain
rdfs:Datatype (and has rdf:value it's value).
But this ist purely meta-meta: I can use URIs in object position
of statements and there is no guarantee that anywhere on earth
this URI is used in the subject position of statements. Of course
this is an undesirable situation, since by using it in object
position I declare that URI to represent something but apparently
I'm not going to reveal any "definition" or further identification
of that entity I have coined. But thats perfectly legal.
Of course no one can be hindered setting up a vocabulary containing
inverse properties of mine and then express the same statement
in reverse order...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----