- From: Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>
- Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 10:56:51 +0100
- To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: <www-archive@w3.org>, <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
I have serve problems with the idea that an agent owns a graph. Nobody owns
the english sentence "Water is blue.", thus I think it is also impossible to
own a graph expressing this sentence.
I think we are mixing the agent/assertion/content- and the
representation/document document layer here again.
I would see it this way:
1. Graphs exist in an abstract way somewhere, similar to english sentences
abstractly existing somewhere even if nobody expresses them.
2. Agents can assert/deny/quote graphs, which takes place on the
agent/assertion/content-layer. Similar to me agreeing with or denying the
sentence the "Water is blue." Thus an assertion is the relation between an
agent and an abstract graph.
3. An agent can publish his assertion on the document layer. This "web act
of publication" might have a "owner" but doesn't have to. I'm thinking of a
graph been published as a document, then crawled and moved into a
knowledgebase by somebody else, who makes the graph accessible afterwards
though a web query interface. I think this process definitifly requires all
asserting- and provenance information been on the
agent/assertion/content-layer and not linked in any way to the document
layer.
Taking the idee that a graph is disjunct from its assertion, just as english
sentences are disjunct from speech acts, we would get a Named Graph
representation like this:
G1 (ex:Water ex:colour ex:blue)
G2 (G1 trix:assertedBy ex:Chris)
G3 (G1 trix:denyedBy ex:Patrick.
G1 trix:assertedBy ex:Pat) )
The graph G1 is independent from the agent. Asserting a graph is a relation
between the agent and the graph.
It can be done everywhere. The graphs can be moved around, stored in
different documents or repositories and whatever.
Chris
Received on Friday, 12 March 2004 05:55:55 UTC