W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-powderwg@w3.org > December 2007

Re: question concerning UCR

From: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:02:42 +0000
Message-ID: <476270E2.3000701@icra.org>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
CC: public-powderwg@w3.org

Thanks for this, Jeremy.

The requirement concerning components and individual assertions having 
identifiers is badly worded but what it was supposed to convey was that 
if we say that a resource is red and square that there should be a way 
of differentiating those two assertions. In effect, this means using 
vocabularies with terms that have URIs. So that I could in theory say 
that I agree with your assertion that 'it' is square but assert that in 
my view actually it's brown.

As you recognise, this is at the edge of the requirements - the main 
thing is to be able to identify that a bunch of resources has a bunch of 
properties that I'm interested in and who says that the resources have 
those properties.

Phil.

Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 
> 
> I have read
> 
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/NOTE-powder-use-cases-20071031/
> 
> and found it a clear and easy to follow document.
> 
> 
> I have one question, concerning 3.1.10
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/NOTE-powder-use-cases-20071031/#identity
> 
> [[
> DRs, their components and individual assertions should have unique and 
> unambiguous identifiers.
> ]]
> 
> I found that the use cases did motivate the weaker requirement
> [[
> DRs should have unique and unambiguous identifiers.
> ]]
> 
> but I wondered how much would be lost if "components and individual 
> assertions" did not have "unique and unambiguous identifiers".
> 
> I note that in a way this requirement interacts with 3.1.3 Groupng, and 
> 3.1.4 Composite Assertions, in that if I assert that some group of 
> resources has some composite property, I have implicitly asserted that a 
> particular resource has a particular property, but that implicit 
> assertion is unlikely to have identity in the sense of 3.1.10; and some 
> functionality will be lost - but I doubt this was crucial functionality.
> 
> Jeremy
Received on Friday, 14 December 2007 12:03:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:42:12 GMT