Re: some GRAPHS strawpolls for today (agenda?)

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 10:57:00 -0500, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> said:

    phayes> As I see it, there are two "models" for this whole issue
    phayes> on the table. In yours, a dataset is effectively a
    phayes> graph-baptism device for attaching names to graphs. In the
    phayes> other, the term "graph name" is a misnomer, and the fourth
    phayes> field is more like a context or 'extension' name, in any
    phayes> case one which can influence the interpretations of the
    phayes> IRIs in the graph. Call these respectively the Name and
    phayes> Context views. Then different views give different votes.

I've pointed out before that I can see people wanting to do *both* of
those things. So when we look at proposals about graphs and compare
them to the use cases we have on the wiki, we look and say whether or
not a proposal can work with each of the use cases. But do we look to
see if a proposal can simultaneously work for more than one or even
(ideally) all the use cases?

For my part, I'd like a way to talk about context and provenance and
such *and* be able to partition or group statements in arbitrary ways
that might, for example, be useful for putting them on web pages. If
these are incompatible uses of the fourth column than we're in
trouble.

I'll just briefly mention that if we use the fourth column to store
statement identifiers we stand a chance of building up all of the
machinery from there, but that suggestion seems to get consistently
shouted down so I won't push it...

Cheers,
-w

--
	    William Waites MBCS <wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk>
 Visiting Researcher, Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science
	    School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh