Re: question concerning UCR

Thanks for this, Jeremy.

The requirement concerning components and individual assertions having 
identifiers is badly worded but what it was supposed to convey was that 
if we say that a resource is red and square that there should be a way 
of differentiating those two assertions. In effect, this means using 
vocabularies with terms that have URIs. So that I could in theory say 
that I agree with your assertion that 'it' is square but assert that in 
my view actually it's brown.

As you recognise, this is at the edge of the requirements - the main 
thing is to be able to identify that a bunch of resources has a bunch of 
properties that I'm interested in and who says that the resources have 
those properties.

Phil.

Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 
> 
> I have read
> 
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/NOTE-powder-use-cases-20071031/
> 
> and found it a clear and easy to follow document.
> 
> 
> I have one question, concerning 3.1.10
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/NOTE-powder-use-cases-20071031/#identity
> 
> [[
> DRs, their components and individual assertions should have unique and 
> unambiguous identifiers.
> ]]
> 
> I found that the use cases did motivate the weaker requirement
> [[
> DRs should have unique and unambiguous identifiers.
> ]]
> 
> but I wondered how much would be lost if "components and individual 
> assertions" did not have "unique and unambiguous identifiers".
> 
> I note that in a way this requirement interacts with 3.1.3 Groupng, and 
> 3.1.4 Composite Assertions, in that if I assert that some group of 
> resources has some composite property, I have implicitly asserted that a 
> particular resource has a particular property, but that implicit 
> assertion is unlikely to have identity in the sense of 3.1.10; and some 
> functionality will be lost - but I doubt this was crucial functionality.
> 
> Jeremy

Received on Friday, 14 December 2007 12:03:05 UTC