- From: Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 08:37:11 -0400
- To: Jon Phipps <jonphipps@gmail.com>
- Cc: Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>, Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, "public-lld@w3.org" <public-lld@w3.org>
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 09:39:27PM -0400, Jon Phipps wrote: > This is basically how I view FRBR. And 'bundles of statements' doesn't > necessarily translate nicely into entities, classes, or even objects. Without > those, disjointness doesn't really seem to be much of an issue. Right - though they would translate nicely into "named graphs", with significant practical advantages (provenance, exchange, distributed maintenance...). > disjointness doesn't really seem to be much of an issue. To be clear - you mean that if the bundles of statements are not entities/classes/objects, it doesn't make sense to say they are disjoint, right? Tom -- Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
Received on Thursday, 27 October 2011 12:37:53 UTC