- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 18:52:59 +0200
- To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
[...] >>Some further thoughts... >>Suppose we want to say >> :John a [ owl:intersectionOf ( :Student :Employee ) ] . >> >>which is in triples*** >> >> :John a _:a0 . >> _:a0 owl:intersectionOf _:a1 . >> _:a1 owl:first :Student . >> _:a1 owl:rest _:a2 . >> _:a2 owl:first :Employee . >> _:a2 owl:rest owl:nil . >> >>Now suppose I'm so clumsy to create http://www.agfa.com/w3c/n3/ta.n3 >> >> :John rdf:type _:a0 . >> _:a0 owl:intersectionOf <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/n3/ti.n3> . >> >>and http://www.agfa.com/w3c/n3/ti.n3 >> >> _:a1 owl:first :Student . >> _:a1 owl:rest _:a2 . >> _:a2 owl:first :Employee . >> _:a2 owl:rest owl:nil . >> >>This is not to say that we should do it in that way, >>just to say that it could be thought in that way. >>I'm now asserting ta.n3 but what happens while >>asserting the owl:intersectionOf statement? >>Because we have to have a list of classes it's >>quite obvious that we have to dereference our uri >>to get that (functional) term in our engines. >>Does that mean that we also have to *assert* the >>statements in ti.n3? Not at all I think. >>We are not ``talking'' about _:a1, but ``using'' it. > >Right, I like this idea. It is simple, straightforward, practical, >and it requires no change to RDF (though it does come close to >violating Dan C's notion of what it means to publish an RDF graph). >OWL needs to add some extra meaning to RDF, but that is what one >would expect, and the extra meaning involved is very 'webbish' and >natural-seeming, involving using URIs as, well, URIs. > >But I had the distinct impression that this option was ruled out at >the Amsterdam F2F on the grounds that any solution that involved >"lots of little files" wasn't acceptable. That was late on the second >day, and things were a little chaotic, but since then I have been >working on the assumption that we have to find some other way to do >it. If that assumption is wrong, maybe someone else who was at the >meeting can correct my memory. That's true, is also my recollection ?? BUt before we go on, do we have a use/mention bug in above triples*** ?? (I think we do, because we are not ``talking'' about _:a1, but ``using'' it) If so, then I think that knowing that _:a1 has to be ``used'' (by value) could also work. -- Jos
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2002 12:53:34 UTC