- From: Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com>
- Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:50:25 +0000
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>, Ed Davies <edavies@nildram.co.uk>, "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@miscoranda.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
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
Received on Friday, 1 February 2008 17:53:20 UTC