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

Re: Test cases: source of a triple

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 23:09:21 -0400
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040902030921.GB14292@w3.org>
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 07:13:39PM -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-09-01 at 19:00, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:28:40AM +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 06:37:58 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> > > > My next example (3) then highlights an interaction of SOURCE and inference
> > > > if we attempt to use the natural result from case 2.  Others advocate that
> > > > SOURCE reflect the origin graph in the aggregation.  What if it can arise
> > > > across the aggregations? Are we saying that inference *can't* be done in
> > > > this case?
> > > 
> > > I havent seen anyone else argue for inferred triples being the the graph
> > > of one of the ground triples that lead to the inference. It seems like an
> > > odd decision.
> > > 
> > > If you place inferred triples in another SOURCE/graph (which seems
> > > reasonable to me) then these problems go away.
> > 
> > 
> > I propose that we not worry about where the inferences go -- leave
> > that to the various engines. They can associate them with whatever
> > URI or bnode they want. Further, they can add a bunch of proof
> > properties if they want. Some group can define those properties
> > after they've been better explored, just as they could say that
> > 
> >   SOURCE ?foo (?p ?s ?o)
> > really means
> >   ?rt rdf:predicate ?p.
> >   ?rt rdf:subject ?s.
> >   ?rt rdf:object ?o.
> >   ?rt rdf2:label ?foo.
> 
> nope; that's got the same use/mention bugs that permeate the
> original RDF specs.

yeah, it *is* the original spec.

> hence the new swap/cwm reification design.
> 
> > By defining a syntax by which our language gets at this provenance
> > data, we get to duck the hard questions of how that provenance data
> > projects into the RDF world. Call me a coward, but that seems like
> > a good idea to me.
> 
> Maybe the general idea is good, but the specifics above are no good.

well, it *does* have the advantage of being a W3C recommendation.

i take this as supportive evidence that, while folks are ready to use
SOURCE, there is no consensus on what it means in the RDF graph.
-- 
-eric

office: +81.466.49.1170 W3C, Keio Research Institute at SFC,
                        Shonan Fujisawa Campus, Keio University,
                        5322 Endo, Fujisawa, Kanagawa 252-8520
                        JAPAN
        +1.617.258.5741 NE43-344, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02144 USA
cell:   +1.857.222.5741 (does not work in Asia)

(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

Received on Thursday, 2 September 2004 03:09:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:46 GMT