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

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

From: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 12:53:29 +0100
To: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@cdepot.net>, "David Menendez" <zednenem@psualum.com>, "rdfig" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EBEPLGMHCDOJJJPCFHEFGEGCIJAA.danny666@virgilio.it>
Re: Contexts (spinoff from copy and wrap rdf statement


  If 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?

  Probably not.

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

  Hmm - that's the crunch I suppose. A HTML document can be a resource and
have a URL that can be used as its URI. But do we consider an RDF document
in the same circumstances a closed box, or a bunch of 'free' statements..?
Similarly, if the HTML doc (let's make that XHTML+XLink) made RDF-friendly
statements ("myMetaDataHere: me.rdf") how available to the referrer should
those statements (and anything else they refer to), be?

  I guess this is back into the "dark triples" idea.

  If statements are directly asserted by this then they lose their
provenence, if they are quoted/reified then that brings up the question of
unquoting/unreification mechanisms.
  Hmm...

  Cheers,
  Danny.
Received on Saturday, 23 November 2002 07:04:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:57 GMT