W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 2002

Re: Contexts (spinoff from copy and wrap rdf statements)

From: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@cdepot.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 03:44:28 -0800
Message-ID: <000b01c292e5$ae4eef90$bd7ba8c0@rhm8200>
To: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@virgilio.it>, "David Menendez" <zednenem@psualum.com>, "rdfig" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Re: Contexts (spinoff from copy and wrap rdf statementIf you let a resource refer to itself, you can just say
    resource has
        graph = "...",
        document = "..."
(however you want to say it in RDFS)
so the graph would have a reference to itself and the document,
and ditto for the document.  

Having such a "cross-reference" doesn't cause any problems, does it?

Aren't the graph and document "isomorphic", i.e., logically equivalent, or
are you talking about a different kind of document here?

I know I'm stumbling into the middle of a conversation here.  If you're too busy,
feel free to ignore me.
Dick McCullough 
knowledge := man do identify od existent done
knowledge haspart list of proposition

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Danny Ayers 
  To: David Menendez ; rdfig 
  Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 2:27 AM
  Subject: RE: Contexts (spinoff from copy and wrap rdf statements)

    Similar. I was actually thinking more along the lines of "some RDF in a local file" or "a graph generated on the fly and sent over the network." Neither of those have convenient URIs.

      I think TimBl would say that  <http://somewhere/me.rdf>  identifies a document.  But a document is not an abstract graph.  So if that URI identifies a document, what URI identifies the actual graph ?

    My inclination is to say that the resource identified by <http://somewhere/me.rdf> is an abstract graph, and the document is a representation of the resource. I vaguely recall there being an argument against that view, but I can't think of what it would be.

    This makes sense, but then one could turn the other way and say the the resource identified is the document, where the document might be a representation of the graph. This would be in line with the identification of documents that aren't RDF. I would guess that in practice the two approaches would work out the same when in came down to app-building. How this relates to the context issue I'm not sure - by referring to the graph and/or document, are the statements therein being quoted or asserted?  

Received on Saturday, 23 November 2002 06:44:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:43 UTC