W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > December 2003

RE: Trust, Context, Justification and Quintuples

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 13:34:44 +0100
To: "Graham Klyne <gk" <gk@ninebynine.org>
Cc: "Chris Bizer" <chris@bizer.de>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF1ACE5C08.42861CF7-ONC1256E03.003E3359-C1256E03.004520C3@agfa.be>


> At 14:11 20/12/03 +0100, Jos De_Roo wrote:
>
>> Assuming (-- taken from Tarski)
>>
>> ==
>> Whenever, in a sentence, we wish to say something about
>> a certain thing, we have to use, in this sentence, not
>> the thing itself but its *name* or *designation*.
>> (this is also the case when the thing talked about
>> happens to be a word or a symbol)
>>
>> Every expression should differ (at least in writing)
>> from its *name*.
>>
>> Forming the *name* of an expression can be done by placing
>> it between quotation marks.
>>
>> The same thing can have many different *names*.
>> ==
>>
>> and assuming N3's { and } as quotation marks
>
> That (i.e. assuming N3's { and } as quotation marks) is one possible
> approach, but not one that I like.  My thoughts (somewhat incomplete) are
at:
>    http://www.ninebynine.org/RDFNotes/UsingContextsWithRDF.html
>
>> then we at least have one of the different means
>> for naming graphs.
>>
>>
>> I understand your example
>>
>> ID => { < a, b, c >
>>         < a1, b1, c1 >
>>         < a2, b2, c2 > }
>>
>> ID => { < a3, b3, c3 > }
>>
>> as giving 1 name to 2 *different* things which I guess
>> was not the intention and which is bad of course.
>
> That's not my intention, and it's not what I do.
>
> In my case, I treat this as defining:
>
> ID => { < a, b, c >
>         < a1, b1, c1 >
>         < a2, b2, c2 >
>         < a3, b3, c3 > }
>
> Part of the rationale is based on the equivalence with the quad approach,

> but you have reminded me that this is a *choice* I made, not an
inevitable
> consequence.

right

> BTW, in N3, what do you think this means?:
>
> :id :- { :a  :b  :c  .
>           :a1 :b1 :c1 .
>           :a2 :b2 :c2 . }
>
> :id :- { :a3 :b3 :c3 . }
>
> (all in a single document.)

I really don't know and have seen that ":-" only once
before (in one of your mails) but can't find it in
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Notation3
nor in
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/grammar/n3-report


>> I've never felt the need for more than {triples} names;
>> those names are written on documents which have URI's
>> and those URI's are the pivotal points.
>
> Er, I'm not following you here

We *call* some-set-of-triples in 2 different ways
1/ either as
   { some-set-of-triples-in-notation3 }
2/ or as
   <uri-of-some-set-of-triples>.log:semantics

All that is written in particular documents
which are URI identified and so we can
explicitly and precisely load that in engines.
There is a means to show what was loaded
and thus trusted.

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Sunday, 21 December 2003 07:35:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:03 GMT