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

Re: Islands (ACTION-148)

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:51:42 +0000
Message-ID: <4F4D061E.9000101@epimorphics.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, RDF-WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>


On 28/02/12 16:41, Ivan Herman wrote:
>
> On Feb 28, 2012, at 17:19 , Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>> Pat,
>>
>> The fact you can have
>>
>> :g1 { :Joe :age 10 }
>> :g2 { :Joe :age 30 }
>> :g3 { :age a :FunctionalProperty }
>>
>> is the point. It's not about graph consistency until the app
>> decides
>> it wishes to apply RDF machinery to some combination of :g1 :g2 and :g3.
>> How it does that is not spec'ed - it would be nice if it were, but given
>>timescales, state of the art, etc, it's where the deployed semweb
>> currently is.
>
> But this also means that [2] does not work for that case, right? The
> 'right' way, according to [2], would be to add the func. property triple
> into both :g1 and :g2.

Pat's example was 3 different graphs.  An app can decide to use the :g3 
ontology is useful and that it thinks :g1 and :g2 have used it 
correctly.  It can then use it with :g1 or on :g2 if it wants.  Using on 
:g1 union :g2 is not good.  This is a decision the app makes before the 
formal systems kick in.

	Andy

>
> Ivan
>
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs/RDF-Datasets-Proposal
Received on Tuesday, 28 February 2012 16:52:09 UTC

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