W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > June 2002

RE: Implementing statement grouping, contexts, quads and scopes

From: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 19:52:11 +0200
To: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, "RDF Logic" <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EBEPLGMHCDOJJJPCFHEFMEBGGNAA.danny666@virgilio.it>

>Whether triples get asserted is not entirely a local issue, nor should it

Hmm - I'm not convinced on either count.

>Consider above, that your triples are "colored" by the base URI of their
>containing document, in this case your e-mail.

A little out of sync here, but in my last mail in response to Thomas'
comment, I intended something similar, starting with my question "What about
my implementation being told that [email:765] is purple?" (the container URI
being [email:765]).

Now consider a "current
>document" which is identified (as always) by a URI.
>In base RDF, a triple is _asserted_ when its color (i.e. base URI) is equal
>to the "current document" URI. Now how one determines the "current
>is outside the scope of RDF, and needs to be more formally addressed for a
>semantic web to get working.

Ok, I'll gladly take your word for the first statement, although I hadn't
actually seen it that way (I periodically revisit the MT and usually leave
none the wiser ;-) I also agree about it being outside of the scope of RDF,
but I'm not convinced of the need for formalization (although it probably
wouldn't hurt). I don't really see anything that might contradict my earlier
inclination to leave these matters to the agent. Allowing the agent to widen
or narrow the scope of the "current document", or in a similar way apply its
own join semantics would strike me as advantageous, if not essential for a
semantic web to get working.

Received on Thursday, 27 June 2002 13:59:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:38 UTC