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

RE: Enumeration in RDF?

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 10:24:16 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030918101800.02e8adc0@127.0.0.1>
To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

At 09:32 18/09/03 +0300, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
>Any solution for tracking source/authority of assertions will
>be proprietary -- even if it constitutes a widely supported
>idiom.

I agree, except to note that the state of being proprietary is not 
necessarily a life sentence.

I do believe we should not be averse to experimentation with proprietary 
mechanisms, and allow those that prove useful to be adopted as community 
property.

#g
--


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ext LYNN,JAMES (HP-USA,ex1) [mailto:james.lynn@hp.com]
> > Sent: 17 September, 2003 17:04
> > To: Stickler Patrick (NMP-MSW/Tampere); garret@globalmentor.com;
> > danbri@w3.org
> > Cc: Barstow Art (NMP-MSW/Boston); www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Enumeration in RDF?
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com [mailto:Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 5:30 AM
> > To: garret@globalmentor.com; danbri@w3.org
> > Cc: Art.Barstow@nokia.com; www-rdf-interest@w3.org;
> > Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
> > Subject: RE: Enumeration in RDF?
> >
> >
> > >Collections, being structures, go contrary to that, as there
> > >is no formally defined way to merge collections.
> >
> > Thinking out loud here (not formally defined)- suppose we
> > view a collection
> > as "known members of a collection" rather than...
> >
> > >... to somehow have control over the
> > >defined members of a collection.
> >
> > This doesn't, of course, resolve this issue...
>
>Sorry, but I'm not quite following what your trying to say here.
>
> > >  RDF has no official means of keeping track
> > of source and/or authority
> >
> > Comments?
>
>Meaning, even though RDF provides a vocabulary for reification,
>and some guidelines thereof, there are no explicit properties
>for specifying *specifically* the source or authority of an
>assertion, nor any treatment of such in the MT.
>
>Any solution for tracking source/authority of assertions will
>be proprietary -- even if it constitutes a widely supported
>idiom.
>
>Patrick
>
>--
>Patrick Stickler
>Nokia, Finland
>patrick.stickler@nokia.com
>

------------
Graham Klyne
GK@NineByNine.org
Received on Thursday, 18 September 2003 08:06:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:02 GMT