W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > July 2001

Re: A use case for anon nodes - action from telecon

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 14:41:23 -0700
Message-Id: <v04210110b7863cfaa171@[]>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>pat hayes wrote:
> > >Brian eventually convinced me that his example was NOT a query.
> >
> > He hasn't convinced me yet. Look, its a simple point. The scenario
> > involves two agents posting pieces of RDF and someone noticing a
> > relationship between those pieces of RDF which triggers some kind of
> > commercial transaction.  What is that relationship? If it is that one
> > of them entails the other, then the one that is entailed by the other
> > was a query, in the required sense. (If it isn't an entailment, what
> > is it?)
>Whatever the relationship is, it is not expressed in either of
>the smears of RDF provided in this example.  Or to put it another
>way, are you suggesting that it is in some way illegal for me to
>describe in RDF a service that buys roses, lest somewhere, there
>might be a service that sells roses and I would thus have created
>a query relationship between the two and that is beyond the scope
>of M&S 1.0?

No, of course not. But the original example seemed to involve some 
kind of transaction or handshaking (?) going on between the buyer and 
the seller, mediated by some kind of relationship between the RDF 
smears (good word!) they have published, ie this RDF-publishing is 
supposed to be in some commercial context of actual activities. Once 
we talk about things that are done with, or as a result of, 
publishing some RDF, we need to be clearer about what relationships 
are being assumed between the RDF that is being published. There is a 
real difference between asserting an existential (saying something 
exists) and holding up an existential as a challenge for someone else 
to prove (eg saying I need someone to sell me some roses, and 
expecting this to somehow extract all the RDF that talks about 
selling roses.) (Eg skolemisation is OK in the former case, not the 
latter; variables can get bound at inference-time in the latter case, 
not the former.) If both the buyers and the sellers are just making 
assertions, then they can both draw all sorts of conclusions, but 
nobody is going to discover anything about themselves that they didnt 
already know, so no roses are going to actually get sold.


(650)859 6569 w
(650)494 3973 h (until September)
Received on Thursday, 26 July 2001 17:41:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:50 UTC