Re: New draft of section 5.5

David Booth wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 17:06 +0100, Nathan wrote:
>> David Booth wrote:
>>> This may get confusing having parallel versions of section 5.5 going
>>> back and forth, but maybe it will help us converge.
>>>
>>> Anyway, here are comments on your latest version of sec 5.5
>>> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/issue57/latest/#chimera
>> Things are getting confused here, the use case doesn't capture Ed's 
>> view, and it's precisely the inverse of what David is discussing.
>>
>> Chimera is when the same graph uses a single name to refer to two 
>> different things, note Ed's terminology "and if I *also*"
>>
>> He's saying that all these statements would be in one graph:
>>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shakespeare> a foaf:Person ;
>>    foaf:name "William Shakespeare" ;
>>    dcterms:modified "2010-06-28T17:02:41-04:00"^^xsd:dateTime ;
>>    cc:license <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/> .
>>
>> Not in two graphs, or made by two different people.
>>
>> Thus David, sorry to say, but what you propose in your own section 5.5 
>> doesn't cover the case Ed is talking about (well it does, btu it doesn't 
>> say what you want, because the conclusions you come to would need to be 
>> applied to the above graph to either create two graphs or remove half 
>> the statements, *prior* to publishing, which == not asserting the above 
>> graph ;)
> 
> Right, I see.  So it sounds like Ed is talking about the case where the
> assertions are *already* co-mingled, and he wants to partition the graph
> into two graphs, such that
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shakespeare> refers to a
> foaf:Person in one and an IR in the other.

Almost, he doesn't want to partition the graph.

He wants you to be able to partition the graph in to two if you care 
enough to do it. (by using the predicate infers the universe of x for 
that statement approach).

Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2011 17:31:34 UTC