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

Re: Model-specific identity for anon resources, and its representation: A new issue?

From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:26:01 +0100
To: melnik@db.stanford.edu
Cc: aswartz@upclink.com, Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <OF1BFD5F42.A23170EB-ON41256A6D.003D0FCA@bayer-ag.com>

Hi Sergey,

[...]
> I don't agree that anonymous nodes should be part of the abstract
> syntax, and would suggest to consider this issue when cleaning up the
> model. I'm convinced that (sufficiently) uniquely generated resources
> serve the purpose better than "anonymous" resources (for instance, in
> the example above you really might want to know whether Person1 and
> Person2 are referring to the same unknown gray thing). Explicit
> existentially qualified variables are IMO out of scope of our work.

Maybe needless to say again that I have
another IMO, but as our DanC says:
  "He Who Does The Work Makes The Rules"
  (and you do work a lot, wittness your
  GINF work which we apply with-IN AGFA
  as AGINFA or A-GINF-A or AG-IN-FA)
and per fundamental human right
  "Anyone Has The Right To Fail"
i would be more than happy to fail and
have a better alternative, but saying
that things are out of scope is not
quite convincing.

I think about a core as being round,
so what's up/down? (more like in/out)
I think there is at least a part
of logic IN the core (maybe EC logic).
I also agree that declarative
programming is indeed a big step,
but in the last 100 years we can
find incredible contributions via the
work of Gottlob Frege, J.A. Robinson,
Pat Hayes just to name a few.

So I wait for your arguments.

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Saturday, 16 June 2001 07:26:32 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:37:10 EDT