| Question asked
|
This work seems to suggest that working di … This work seems to suggest that working directly in an RDF syntax (any syntax, although the paper conflates the RDF model with the RDF/XML syntax) isn't a reasonable path forward for the semantic web: "What is urgently required is a high-level interface language to the Semantic Web that abstracts away from these RDF-based formal notations." However, the simplistic examples used in the paper seem to confuse a resource and it's name. For example, section 3 equates "Nora Yuen supervises John Smith" with the RDF "<NoraYuen> ex:supervise <JohnSmith>". Can this model capture RDF's generality, for example describing two different people named "John Smith"? If the model uses names in this way as an identifier, it seems like it would fail to represent this data. If the "John Smith" in this CNL is meant to represent the URI, not the name, wouldn't this require a none-too-natural-language construct such as "John Smith is named 'John Smith'"? uch as "John Smith is named 'John Smith'"?
|
