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

Re: Another try.

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:01:08 -0500
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <1329922868.2166.196.camel@waldron>
On Tue, 2012-02-21 at 15:43 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote:
>  the rdf: and rdfs: vocabularies are not intended to be used
> 'contextually' (eg they dont change with time and should be resistant
> to subjective re-interpretation)

Is that really true?

    :SanFrancisco rdf:type :CityInCalifornia.
    :CityInCalifornia rdfs:subClassOf :AmericanCity.

That seems like a fairly typical subclass relations, but it only became
true in 1850.   There are current examples, too, of course.   Is that an
error in modeling?  If so, I suspect it's a very common one.

The problem I'm having with this current discussion (which I think is
headed in the right direction, to a point) is that I can think of
reasons why pretty much *any* RDF triple might reasonably change over
time.  By default, despite the RDF semantics, nearly every graph on the
Web probably is in a different time-context, so people merging graphs
really do need metadata before they can do a truth-preserving merge.
Quads are then a way to manage that metadata, I think.

     -- Sandro
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 15:01:17 UTC

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