- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:18:49 -0800
- 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. Seth
Received on Thursday, 22 February 2001 11:09:33 UTC