- From: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:02:42 +0000
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- CC: public-powderwg@w3.org
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