Re: New draft of section 5.5

On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 17:06 +0100, Nathan wrote:
> David Booth wrote:
> > This may get confusing having parallel versions of section 5.5 going
> > back and forth, but maybe it will help us converge.
> > 
> > Anyway, here are comments on your latest version of sec 5.5
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/issue57/latest/#chimera
> 
> Things are getting confused here, the use case doesn't capture Ed's 
> view, and it's precisely the inverse of what David is discussing.
> 
> Chimera is when the same graph uses a single name to refer to two 
> different things, note Ed's terminology "and if I *also*"
> 
> He's saying that all these statements would be in one graph:
> 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shakespeare> a foaf:Person ;
>    foaf:name "William Shakespeare" ;
>    dcterms:modified "2010-06-28T17:02:41-04:00"^^xsd:dateTime ;
>    cc:license <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/> .
> 
> Not in two graphs, or made by two different people.
> 
> Thus David, sorry to say, but what you propose in your own section 5.5 
> doesn't cover the case Ed is talking about (well it does, btu it doesn't 
> say what you want, because the conclusions you come to would need to be 
> applied to the above graph to either create two graphs or remove half 
> the statements, *prior* to publishing, which == not asserting the above 
> graph ;)

Right, I see.  So it sounds like Ed is talking about the case where the
assertions are *already* co-mingled, and he wants to partition the graph
into two graphs, such that
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shakespeare> refers to a
foaf:Person in one and an IR in the other.


-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.

Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2011 17:21:53 UTC