#ThisGraph

pat hayes wrote:

> If we have ways of stating the boundaries of 
> documents/databases/whatever, and of referring to them (perhaps 
> implicitly) and saying explicitly that something follows from this 
> bounded thingie alone, then we could say a lot of things that we are 
> unable to say right now. And it wouldn't be rocket science to provide 
> for saying things like this. No argument there. 

Well why can't we just do that?   Why not standardize on a URI for the 
abstract graph represented by the document at <foo>?   It could always 
be <foo#ThisGraph>.   The RDF MT could give us the entailment:

   <foo#ThisGraph> representedBy <foo>

The "#ThisGraph" would be a syntactic constant in RDF just like 
'rdf:about'.   This would go along with TimBl's conception that URIREF's 
with fragments denote abastract things in RDF while URI's without 
fragments denote documents.  I think N3 already has something like this.  

.... just a Sunday morning though

Seth Russell
http://radio.weblogs.com/0113759/