- From: Alberto Reggiori <alberto@asemantics.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 23:25:01 +0200
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
(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) (characters). 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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0581.html is there any reason why a named-graph can not be a bNode and referenced-by-description? Yours Alberto
Received on Monday, 4 October 2004 21:25:02 UTC