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 04:51:00 -0800
Message-ID: <001701c292ee$f9c82370$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 statementI would consider the set of statements in a document (or graph) to be a property/value of the document (or possibly a "part", but I think that's an unnecessarily complicated viewpoint).  Now you can talk about that property/value, define a truth-value property for it, etc.
============ 
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.
    Hmm... 

    Cheers,
    Danny.
Received on Saturday, 23 November 2002 07:51:01 GMT

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