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 04:39:11 -0800
Message-ID: <000f01c292ed$538c4000$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 statementIn a confusing situation like this, you just have to step back and ask yourself, what entities do I have in reality?  Say,
    John Doe the person
    graph with info about John Doe
    document with info about John Doe
Now, what properties do each of these entities have?

I think cross-reference properties are generally safe, because they're just bookkeeping, and usually not involved in any logical inferences.

Dick McCullough 
knowledge := man do identify od existent done
knowledge haspart list of proposition

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Danny Ayers 
  To: Richard H. McCullough ; David Menendez ; rdfig 
  Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 3:53 AM
  Subject: RE: Contexts (spinoff from copy and wrap rdf statements)

    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.

Received on Saturday, 23 November 2002 07:39:13 UTC

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