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 13:45:35 -0800
Message-ID: <000f01c29339$a8581900$bd7ba8c0@rhm8200>
To: <seth@robustai.net>
Cc: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@virgilio.it>, "David Menendez" <zednenem@psualum.com>, "rdfig" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
You are absolutely right.
Pretending a "part" is an "attribute" may cause trouble as we try to use it.

I'm saying: from my experience, it's easier to work with attributes than with parts.
Maybe it's time for me to do some more work with parts.
============ 
Dick McCullough 
knowledge := man do identify od existent done
knowledge haspart list of proposition

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Seth Russell 
  To: Richard H. McCullough 
  Cc: Danny Ayers ; David Menendez ; rdfig 
  Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 12:06 PM
  Subject: 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 := 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 16:45:37 GMT

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