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

Re: question concerning UCR

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:07:45 +0000
Message-ID: <47628021.10205@hpl.hp.com>
To: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
CC: public-powderwg@w3.org


Thanks, this is helpful.

Jeremy

Phil Archer wrote:
> 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 13:08:16 GMT

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