W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > December 2000

RE: Statements/Stating: a proposition

From: McBride, Brian <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 10:02:55 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F2395AF@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: 'Bill de hÓra' <dehora@acm.org>
Cc: "RDF Interest (E-mail)" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Hi Bill,

> 
> My second go at this (I was a bit curt the last time in hindsight,
> apologies)...

No offense taken :)

I support the call for a glossary, and thanks for pointing
the ambiguities in my previous posting.  If I don't know
the ambiguity is there, I can't learn to improve.

Happy Holiday's

Brian




> 
> : > : Consider a statement S which occurs in two documents,
> : > : http://foo and http://bar.
> : > :
> : > : Let RS be a reified statement representing both S and
> : > : its occurrence in http://foo.  Thus:
> : > :
> : > :    (occursIn, RS, http://foo)
> : > :
> : > : is true.
> 
> Unless I missed something, (occursIn, RS, http://foo) is false. There
> are an infinite number of resources that might model S, one of which
> is RS, according to my understanding of the RDFm. But I don't see how
> the presence of a representation of S in a given document
> automatically implies the presence of a represention of RS in that
> document. That has to be an inference of sorts, or some kind of
> normative behaviour allowed to processors. Otherwise, how can one be
> sure which of these very many potentially modelling resources of S RS
> is the representation of, or should be? If anything, should we have
> an infinitely sized alt container hanging off this document
> containing all the possible representations of the resources that
> model S, where RS is the default? That might be mathematically sound
> (I don't know), but it's not useful surely for an implementation. I
> have the feeling that the set/math model of RDF such as it is, is
> being intertwined with machine dependent implementations.
> 
> 
> : > If S then your ensuing statement might
> : > be true iff RS is present with S in http://foo.
> :
> : I don't see why.
> 
> It might be, if there is syntactically present an RS that models S in
> the document (possibly we need a predicate noReallyOccursIn).
> Normally I'd assume a closed world, and say that (occursIn, RS,
> http://foo) is false unless that model of S, RS, is
> syntactically/literally present. Now, it might be the case that an
> RDF processor finds it convenient to automaticaly infer the presence
> of RS. But I don't see that in the RDFm (I shall go and check again
> though :).
> 
> : > Also, I'm not altogether sure that RS can represent both S and
> its
> : > occurence.
> :
> : Neither am I.  The message you are responding to was an attempt
> : to explain why I don't think it works.
> 
> Ah. My bad.
> 
> 
> : > Again this is ambiguous. Do you mean an occurence of S
> : > within http://foo, or do you mean that RS stands for the
> statement S
> : > and any occurence/instance of S?
> :
> : The text I wrote does say "and its occurrence in http://foo".  Does
> : that not distinguish it from "any occurrence/instance of S"?
> 
> Yes now: I didn't know what "its" was referrring to.
> 
> 
> : I was feeling today that I at least, made some progress in
> : understanding Pierre-Antoine's proposal.  The language we used
> : was sufficiently precise to clarify differences in our
> : conceptions of what is going on here.
> :
> : However, I feel sufficiently chastised that I'll have a go
> : at a more formal approach, something I should have done a
> : while ago.
> 
> I feel the same way, but too lazy to get formal (yet). I don't know
> whether Pierre's proposal actively causes contradications, but I
> don't see how it's generally useful either in processing terms.
> Pierre, help?
> 
> - -Bill de hÓra
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGP 7.0
> 
> iQA/AwUBOkKQguaWiFwg2CH4EQJo8gCfbN5ib8aTyaFasaPC36R7MqqOK8sAoME+
> c7e7Q2vTcAOM7Us0lHxIrLgd
> =8XeR
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 22 December 2000 05:04:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:47 GMT