i think it’s really cool how the semantic web people did a bunch of work and wrote a bunch of theory about how we can teach computers to reason, and then within a few years mostly agreed that having computers reason is a waste of time, but kept the formal specifications and vocabulary because it actually made things easier for humans to explain things to each other
this is fine for what i’m doing so far but i’m still waiting for that Moment when a specification inevitably tries to use an Ontology Itself as the subject or object of an object property, thus implying that owl:Ontology is an owl:Class not merely an rdfs:Class (these are not the same)
anyway the actually interesting insight wasn’t in that specification but in the specification mapping R·D·F to Direct Semantics which states, with no fanfare, that all owl:OntologyProperty’s (note: this term is not documented) are silently transformed into owl:AnnotationProperty’s (interesting for the insight that properties of ontologies are functionally annotations in their implications)
if you are wondering how bad it can be, you have clearly never read a Semantics specification
literally rewound because i KNOW the lyric is boy and doesn’t sound at all like girl but that is what i heard ok
hey you know that part of the specification which is frankly underspecified and generally requires reading between the lines and carrying forward expectations made in different documents in order to even understand what the appropriate behaviour is? well i depend on that
Administrator / Public Relations for GlitchCat. Not actually glitchy, nor a cat. I wrote the rules for this instance.
“Constitutionally incapable of not going hard” — @aescling
“Fedi Cassandra” – @Satsuma
I HAVE EXPERIENCE IN THINGS. YOU CAN JUST @ ME.
I work for a library but I post about Zelda fanfiction.