Re: rdfs:Graph ? comment on and issue 35

On 09/09/2013 02:51 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>  The question though is, whether
> I(<>) = the graph you want it to
> mean. The problem is that there are people who want to use an IRI to
> simultaneously denote a person (say) but also be the name of a graph
> (eg of information about that person). And they have deployed systems
> and much money vested in being able to do this.

Uh . . . this may be opening up a can of worms, but what you're saying 
sounds a lot like the IRI resource identity ambiguity issue that has 
been discussed quite a lot in the past.  In short, there is no conflict 
if either: (a) the class of persons has not been asserted to be disjoint 
with the class of graphs; or (b) the IRI denotes a person in one RDF 
interpretation (e.g. in one system) but denotes a graph in a different 
RDF interpretation (e.g. in a different system).

I don't know if this observation would help resolve the problem that 
you're mentioning though.


Received on Thursday, 12 September 2013 00:38:46 UTC