W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > October 2011

Re: <sandro> PatHayes, can you formally define g-box for us?

From: Ian Davis <ian.davis@talis.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:18:22 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAiX05H1WSTx8hGw08usiLZ+poKXV7fST4btHqtmVgqvDYqC+g@mail.gmail.com>
To: William Waites <wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org, phayes@ihmc.us
On 13 Oct 2011 09:38, "William Waites" <wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 08:50:27 +0100, Ian Davis <ian.davis@talis.com> said:
>
>    iand> This is a very interesting formulation of the web
>    iand> architecture. More generally one might say "when an IRI
>    iand> identifies a resource that IRI then also denotes the state
>    iand> of the resource"
>
> I find it hard to see how to wiggle out of mentioning time in the same
> breath as "denote" but maybe that's because of some lack of formal
> background in logic or philosophy. Does this mean that to identify a
> resource means to denote all possible states of that resource at all
> times in the past and future? Or in other words can the IRI denote
> more than one state of the resource at the same time? Or does "denote"
> require an observer, the agent doing the dereferencing thinks that the
> IRI denotes state s because that's what they got with an HTTP GET?
>
> Sorry if this is muddy thinking, not enough coffee yet.
>

RDF is timeless so you can't meaningfully talk about those things in that
context. I think there is just _a_ resource with _a_ state.

Pat, I wonder if you would be able to define dereference (in the webarch
sense) in terms of the identify/denote framework you suggested.


> Cheers,
> -w
Received on Thursday, 13 October 2011 09:18:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:45 GMT