W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: RDFS versioning

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:18:49 -0800
Message-ID: <3A953BE9.28EB8A71@robustai.net>
To: Bill dehOra <BdehOra@interx.com>
CC: "'Aaron Swartz'" <aswartz@upclink.com>, RDF Comments <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Bill dehOra wrote:

> : Aaron Swartz:
> :Ahh yes -- if that were the only issue, I wouldn't be upset.
> :But the spec
> :also "recommends" that RDF-based systems can cache a schema
> :indefinitely
> :(which I read as "until the next Ice Age") which means that you're
> :effectively stuck:
> Well that's fine and consistent with the change schema == change URI.
> Ignoring typos and discovery issues for now, imagine A and B are machines
> chugging along happily using schema a, which both have cached. The authors
> of schema a want to update it, but to do this and be good web citizens, they
> have to give it a new URI. Let's call that new version schema aa.

[... some more tortuous stuff snipped ...]

Wooh!  What about some simple (retract ... assert) transactions to the semantic
cloud as the basis for changing schema?   "Cached schema" is just another term
for semantic memory.  Take a look at the diagram at
http://robustai.net/mentography/perdicaments.gif .   You guys seem to be making
the assumption that you can ever make this cloud coherent for everybody
globally.   I don't think you can.  The only way for a ( person / company /
government / organization) to find coherence, is for it to collect its own
triples somewhat isolated them from the rest of the incoherent cloud.

Don't fight fragmentation, learn to love it, but get your own shit together.
Received on Thursday, 22 February 2001 11:09:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:13 UTC