W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > April to June 1999

Re: Are duplicate property/value pairs permitted for a resource?

From: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 09:30:49 -0400
Message-ID: <3711F589.83B6FCF@locke.ccil.org>
To: Samuel Yang <syang@peoplemoverinc.com>
CC: "'www-rdf-comments@w3.org'" <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Samuel Yang wrote:

> I think "facts" must be incontrovertible within a single RDF dataset.
> Ideally a single RDF dataset should be shared only by agents that share the
> same belief system.  However, if a single dataset is shared between agents
> with different belief systems, then those agents somehow deemed "unreliable"
> (perhaps all of them) must use reified statements.  Otherwise, the dataset
> is itself unreliable and therefore useless.

Agreed.

> In fact, if as John proposed, an RDF processor were able to support
> alternative beliefs as facts,

I made no such proposal.  I simply asked what it meant to delete
a fact from an RDF dataset.

> the processor would still have to internally
> represent every fact as a reified statement.  That is, the processor must
> remember internally for each fact which agent asserted it.

The second sentence does not imply the first: an RDF engine might
remember the author (in the sense "authority" as well as "creator")
of a fact without using RDF to represent that, though it is a
sensible technique.

-- 
John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan		cowan@ccil.org
	You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
	You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
		Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)
Received on Monday, 12 April 1999 09:31:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:26 GMT