- From: Thomas B. Passin <tpassin@comcast.net>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 18:13:15 -0400
- To: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
[Danny Ayers] > > >>The url of the email in the archives (say email:765) can be used > >to identify > >>this. So an application can know the providence of the statements > >(the email > >>in the archives has a record of the sender), and we have a form of > >>grouping - the statements are both in the graph at the uri of this mail. > > > >OK, maybe provenances are handy. Still, the chief trouble with this > >is that there are many other reasons, having nothing to do with > >provenance, for wanting to form statement groups, so the grouping > >machinery shouldn't be integrated with the provenance machinery. > > That sounds reasonable. You know how a lot of these things could be handled? If an rdf:RDF element had an ID attribute, you could reference the entire graph enclosed by that element. This would be very much like Danny's sandbox. Obviously applications wouldn't have much trouble maintaining separate sets of triples as long as they were disjoint. Adding an ID would formalize that notion, and would allow roundtripping. The semantic issues to be solved would be 1) disjointness (is it necessary and can it be enforced if so?), 2) cross-subgraph statements, and 3) whether an identified graph should be allowed the be the subject of a statement in another graph (I would say clearly yes, but maybe self-referential statements should be disallowed?). Once a subgraph can be identified (could we have blank subgraphs?), we can color it, apply trust to it, track its provenance, etc. All it really would take would be an ID attribute. Cheers, Tom P Cheers, Tom P
Received on Thursday, 27 June 2002 18:12:56 UTC