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

Richard H. McCullough wrote:

> 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.

I don't think it is a property in the sense of rdfs:Property.     But a 
statement is certainly a part of a document, and a triple is certainly a 
part of a graph.  I don't see any reason we couldn't assign truth values 
to statements that talk about these things... formally:

language: Semenglish
{<foo.rdf> docContains "A r B."} entails {<foo.rdf#ThisGraph> 
graphContains {A r B}}.
ThisEmail author (Seth Russell).
(Semenglish Primer) seeUrl 
<http://robustai.net/mentography/semenglish.html>.

>
> ============
> Dick McCullough
> knowledge <http://rhm.cdepot.net/> *:=* man *do* identify *od* 
> existent *done*
> knowledge *haspart* list *of* proposition
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* Danny Ayers <mailto:danny666@virgilio.it>
>     *To:* Richard H. McCullough <mailto:rhm@cdepot.net> ; David
>     Menendez <mailto:zednenem@psualum.com> ; rdfig
>     <mailto:www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
>     *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.
>