W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2004

Re: UC&R ready for review

From: Alberto Reggiori <alberto@asemantics.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 23:25:01 +0200
Message-Id: <D9B09652-164B-11D9-B5B4-0003939CA324@asemantics.com>
Cc: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>

(replying as the original author of the "identity management" use case)

On Oct 4, 2004, at 10:05 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:

>>   RDF Data Access Use Cases and Requirements
>>   Revision: 1.138, Date: 2004/10/01 19:56:52
>>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/UseCases
>> is ready for review for publication.
>> Kendall
> 2.15 Mr X has two personae, why does he need three PPDs?

in the scenario I had in mind (the Web?),  he might have several 
separated PPDs handed around (one sitting on his home directory on the 
laptop /Users/MisterX/foaf.rdf, one on a Web site at work, one on his 
palm/iPod, one on a 3rd part server annotated by somebody else and so 
on) - perhaps not all synchronized (merged) together and having 
different trust levels - and overlaying to describe his two persona(s) 

my whole point with the "identity management" UC was to try motivate 
the need of named-graphs (named containers) as bNodes and not simply 
URIs i.e. here is my profile persona1.rdf, here is my profile 
persona2.rdf  VS. here is my FOAF profile source about my persona(s). 
In a certain sense have the possibility to refer to the whole 
'collection of named containers' about MisterX FOAF information 
(instead of each separated conatiner) and distinguish each of them at 
query time, as outlined in Andy's proposal


is there any reason why a named-graph can not be a bNode and 


Received on Monday, 4 October 2004 21:25:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:45 UTC