W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Another try.

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:28:36 +0000
Message-ID: <4F44C354.7080505@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org


On 21/02/12 22:23, Pat Hayes wrote:
>
> On Feb 21, 2012, at 10:00 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:



>> and whether the explicit label+set of triples form does not.
>
> They are formally equivalent, and neither of them do.
>
>>
>> All existing vocabularies like FOAF don't say anything about P(S,O,G) so if we just do it as an extension from pairs to triples (triples to quads), then the existing definitions that talk about pairs don't apply any ore do they?
>>
>> Concretely:
>>
>> :g1 {<x>  foaf:age 15 }
>>
>> :g2 {<x>  foaf:age 25 }
>>
>> In a graph foaf:age has a definition (albeit troublesome)..
>
> Right now, this datastore contains a contradiction (well, assuming global scope of bnodes, but leave that issue aside.). If we adopt the proposal it still does, but if we instead write it as
>
> :g1 {<x>  foaf:age 15 + )
>
> :g2 {<x>  foaf:age 25 + }
>

I think the reality is that all existing RDF data is assuming "+" semantics.

Just putting a graph upon the web is an offer for people to decide 
whether to use it or not, and in what scope.  From the data consumer 
point of view, they use it under their acceptability criterion.

	Andy

> then its no longer a contradiction. Presumably, that age was recorded at different times, or under different circumstances, and the :g1/2 URIs encode these differences somehow, since they have now been treated as a genuine parameter of the foaf:age relation.
>
> Pat
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 10:29:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:03 UTC