- From: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 08:44:19 -0400
- To: <sandro@w3.org>
- CC: <ww@styx.org>, <richard@cyganiak.de>, <lehors@us.ibm.com>, <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> Subject: Re: complete graphs Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 07:31:26 -0500 [...] > The restriction on the fourth column is that the fourth column is the > web address of a place (a g-box) currently serving that triple. > (That's the architecture I'm arguing for in this morning's post to > public-rdf-prov [1].) You are going to build this into the formal meaning of RDF? That's a non-starter for me. > The issue about completeness is that if I want to say, as in [1], that I > agree or disagree with a statement (or otherwise build on it), it's > important the readers see the whole statement (or know that they are > seeing only a partial statement). It's even more important for me to > know if I'm seeing the whole statement before I say if I agree. Please, let's try to be more precise. In particular, there is rdf:Statement, so "statement" is something that has to be carefully used. > -- Sandro > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-prov/2011Sep/0023 peter
Received on Friday, 30 September 2011 12:45:48 UTC