Re: [httpRange-14] What is an Information Resource?

On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 11:38 -0500, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> 
> On 2008-02 -01, at 10:19, Ian Davis wrote:
> > but it's less clear that
> > 
> > ex:RdfGraph owl:disjointWith awww:InformationResource .
> > 
> 
> 
> This is because ex: hasn't defined RDFGraph completeley,
> and specifically, hasn't defined the relationship to InformanResource.
> 

So shouldn't that be defined by the RDF Semantics? Shouldn't all W3C
recommendations in future come with a schema for its terms relating them
to the web architecture? I would use rdf:RdfGraph in that statement
then.

As an aside, the semantics rec says:

"An RDF graph, or simply a graph, is a set of RDF triples."

triples are composed of things that are Unicode strings, e.g. 

"A URI reference within an RDF graph (an RDF URI reference) is a Unicode
string"

So I interpret that as saying an RDF Graph is a set of Unicode strings
arranged in a particular fashion. That, to me, is compatible with being
an IR.


> 
> In the cwm world, thee is for example a property log:semamantics
> (don't argue about the name of it) which relates
> an information resource to an n3:Formula.
> It is backed up by code. 
> There are built-ins which operate on formulae, and do not operate 
> on InformationResources.   It is clear that Formula is disjoint from
> InformationResource.  The code won't let you take the log:semantics of
> a Formula.

You imply here that

ex:RdfGraph owl:sameAs n3:Formula .

But http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Reify.html says:

"A formula is described by three sets: the set of statements (the
graph), the set of universals and the set of existentials."

Which suggests that a graph is only one part of a Formula.


Ian