- From: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 09:30:49 -0400
- 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 UTC