W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 2002

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

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 08:34:00 -0800
Message-ID: <3DE3A278.7060208@robustai.net>
To: David Menendez <zednenem@psualum.com>
CC: rdfig <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

David Menendez wrote:

> At 12:08 PM -0800 2002-11-25, Seth Russell wrote:
>
>> Well all the triples in the graph I'm trying to come up with are not 
>> encoded in *just one* rdf document.  That was the point of the use 
>> case at the bottom of my last post [1].  How doe we allow *multiple* 
>> rdf documents to assert triples to the *same*  graph ?
>>
>> [1] 
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2002Nov/0386.html
>
>
> In your example, in order for an agent to know the contents of the 
> graph <http://example.org/context/cats.rdf#ThisGraph>, it would need 
> to know the contents of every document on the web which asserts 
> statements in that context. Since that is impossible, the best it 
> could do is generate a subgraph of 
> <http://example.org/context/cats.rdf#ThisGraph>.

The whole point of this is to have a handel to extend the current 
technology such that the discovery of the entire graph or at least a 
large portion of that graph *will* be possible.  

>
> Aside from having a name for an abstract graph of information about 
> cats, what is the difference between that scenario and one where 
> everyone just asserts facts about their own cats and agents collect 
> the information and generate their own graphs?

Naming that which you want to find is sometimes the first step in 
finding it.  In this case the name of the graph is necessary so that 
many agents can *cooperate* to discover it.   In fact just quoting the 
URI of the context on your blog should help Google do most of the work 
for you.  

Seth Russell
Received on Tuesday, 26 November 2002 11:34:44 GMT

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