W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > June 2002

Re: Making progress

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 21:08:47 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020625210515.00a53140@joy.songbird.com>
To: "R.V.Guha" <guha@guha.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 09:06 AM 6/25/02 -0700, R.V.Guha wrote:

>I'd like to reiterate Pat's point.
>
>If darkness is specified by the addition of something to the graph, then 
>there is no way to avoid non-mon. We have been over this many times now. 
>Could we please stop reopening this issue?
>
>Jan, same problem occurs with your proposal too. Let us suppose a file 
>contains:
>
><rdf:Descrpition rdf:about="eg:foo">
>           <eg:blah>wibble</eg:blah>
></rdf:Description>
>
>Nothing is dark here. I then merge this with another file containing
>
><rdf:Descrpition rdf:about="eg:foo">
>           <eg:blah rdf:dark="yes">wibble</eg:blah>
></rdf:Description>
>
>I have essentially retracted statements from the first file without 
>touching it.

I disagree:  I say there are two instances of eg:blah in the merged graph 
-- one is dark, the other is not.  The one that is not dark is not darkened 
by the one that is.  I thought you had accepted (or acknowledged) this 
interpretation during thew F2F discussion.

Yes, this presumes an extension to the graph syntax as currently defined.

>Darkness specification has to be *in the language*, not in a particular 
>file using the language.

I agree with that bit.

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2002 16:19:54 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:49:23 EDT