- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 07:17:59 -0400
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-prov@w3.org
>>> Absolutely. The problem that I'm trying to highlight is that traditional named graph modeling (from what I have seen) has been "lazy" in the choice of URIs used to name them, inadequately assuming a local scope when referencing them. This laziness _is_ violating the AWWW's only-one-referrent principle. > > We agree then that inappropriate naming is a problem. I think that the inappropriateness is as much whether the naming is "fit for purpose" (application purpose). Reuse of information by someone else may be stretching or breaking the original purpose - result: bad naming. The original naming scheme miay well have been adequate for the original publisher. > > I tried to describe how an application that really wants to track changes might go about naming of the significant concepts: it does not rely on the publisher doing anything (Sandro has written up the version where the publisher publishes in a way that makes the state at a particular time explicit): > > The write-up was rather rushed I'm afraid: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Oct/0148.html Great! Thanks for the pointer. I'll dig through it. > > (There is no new idea in the description - it's entirely other people's ideas written up badly) > > To compare to N3: log:includes is the relationship of a location and its contents. It's at a point in time, when the application rules run. To capture the possibility of observations at different times, each observation generates a URI and makes claims about the observation. Very useful. Thanks. Regards, Tim
Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2011 11:18:42 UTC