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

Re: Trust, Context, Justification and Quintuples

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 08:14:31 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20031221080615.02cd1d50@127.0.0.1>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

At 21:48 20/12/03 +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote:



>Graham Klyne wrote:
>
>
>>Or, to put it another way, what do you do with:
>>ID => { < a, b, c >
>>         < a1, b1, c1 >
>>         < a2, b2, c2 > }
>>ID => { < a3, b3, c3 > }
>>?
>
>
>Bottom, false, 0 = 1.
>
>It's just wrong.

OK, I think that's a reasonable position, just not the only possible 
such.  And it does allow one to say that a syntactic occurrence of a graph 
is closed, or complete.

I took a slightly different line:

If one asserts that ID denotes a truth, then one might reasonably take a 
view that all of the graphs associated (syntactically) with ID are true, 
which means that ID itself would denote a merge of the individual graphs 
(or a union if you were to decide that bnodes can be shared between such 
instances within a single document).

I recognize (more clearly now than when I posted my earlier comments) that 
this is a *choice* that happens to closely reflects the quads approach to 
representing "context"s (and in my approach is suggested by a desire to 
remain broadly compatible with the CWM approach to contexts).

#g


------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Sunday, 21 December 2003 13:35:46 GMT

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