W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2004

Re: Named graphs etc

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 20:13:10 -0600
Message-Id: <p06001f14bc64577d7c64@[]>
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>, <www-archive@w3.org>, <chris@bizer.de>, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
>On Feb 23, 2004, at 17:32, ext Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>>I have been being beaten up further from the pragmatic wing  by Chris
>>Bizer - He is beginning to convince me ...
>>My understanding of his key arguments is as follows:
>>- use vocab as much as possible, not syntactic mechanisms
>>     : impacts graphset tag name
>>               asserted attribute
>Fair enough. Though we could consider the attribute value as
>a short hand, which generates a second anonymous graph containing
>the statement about assertion of the first graph.
>We may, though, end up with an infinite recursion. I.e., we have
>a graph X that is asserted. In order to say that X is asserted,
>we have to have another graph X' containing a statement that
>X is asserted. But if X' is also asserted, we have to have another
>graph X'' with a statement saying that X' is asserted, etc., etc.

Lewis Carroll was there first:



Nah, don't worry about it. Once you assert something, its asserted. 
You don't need to assert the assertion.


IHMC	(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501			(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 26 February 2004 21:13:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:42:36 UTC