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 15:12:21 +0100
To: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@cdepot.net>, "David Menendez" <zednenem@psualum.com>, "rdfig" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EBEPLGMHCDOJJJPCFHEFIEGGIJAA.danny666@virgilio.it>
Re: Contexts (spinoff from copy and wrap rdf statement > To talk about
something, you need a name which denotes that something.  On the internet, a
URL can serve as a name (or an alias if you need an alias for some reason).
The  > something   that a URL denotes is (usually) a physical document on a
server on the internet.  That physical document may then refer to other
named entities via
   > cross-references, or references embedded in statements which are in the
document.

  For identifiers, we have the URI, which is reasonably well defined in
general and within RDF.
  http://www.w3.org/Addressing/URL/uri-spec.html

  The problem here I think is the interpretation of an identified resource
that happens to be or include a representation of an RDF model.

   > I recommend drawing a picture showing each entity, and labeling each
with its name & important properties.  In this context, what's important are
the relations between the entities.

  http://x -> URL http://x
  URL http:/x returns x.rdf
  x.rdf == documentX
  documentX hasContent modelX
  modelX = {S1, S2...}

  so in effect

  http://x = document{model(S1, S2...}}

  where the document could perhaps be seen as the collection of the reified
versions of the statements

  or

  given that http:/x returns x.rdf,
  http://x = modelX = {S1, S2...}

  ?


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

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Richard H. McCullough
    To: Danny Ayers ; David Menendez ; rdfig
    Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 4:51 AM
    Subject: Re: Contexts (spinoff from copy and wrap rdf statements)


    I 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 09:23:42 GMT

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