W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > September 2013

Re: rdfs:Graph ? comment on http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-dataset and issue 35

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 19:32:23 -0700
Cc: Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, "public-rdf-comments@w3.org Comments" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F05DA09D-6452-4A32-B530-881A4D3BB43B@ihmc.us>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>

On Sep 11, 2013, at 5:38 PM, David Booth wrote:

> On 09/09/2013 02:51 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> The question though is, whether
>> I(<http://my.graph.name.example.org/>) = the graph you want it to
>> mean. The problem is that there are people who want to use an IRI to
>> simultaneously denote a person (say) but also be the name of a graph
>> (eg of information about that person). And they have deployed systems
>> and much money vested in being able to do this.
> 
> Uh . . . this may be opening up a can of worms, but what you're saying sounds a lot like the IRI resource identity ambiguity issue that has been discussed quite a lot in the past.  In short, there is no conflict if either: (a) the class of persons has not been asserted to be disjoint with the class of graphs

Indeed. I am assuming throughout this discussion that graphs and persons are disjoint classes, and that this is known by all parties involved.

> ; or (b) the IRI denotes a person in one RDF interpretation (e.g. in one system) but denotes a graph in a different RDF interpretation (e.g. in a different system).

That is nonsense, as I have explained to you many times in the past. Interpretations are not systems: they are alternative ways to construe what IRIs denote. But each IRI denotes one thing, in all possible interpretations. (The current RDF 1.1 semantics socument makes thie very explicit, by the way.) If we want to allow different occurences of an IRI to denote different things, then we would need some kind of context mechanism in RDF, which it currently does not have, and providing which would have been beyond this WGs charter.

> 
> I don't know if this observation would help resolve the problem that you're mentioning though.

Neither of them do, I'm afraid. 

Pat

> 
> David
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St.            (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile (preferred)
phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 12 September 2013 02:32:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:59:36 UTC