Re: promote provenance to a requirement?

On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 02:51:26 -0400, Kendall Clark wrote:
> Ah, I realized what this was... I agreed with Dave Beckett's claim:
>   I think 4.2 probably should be a (candidate) requirement, not an
>   objective.  At least if it is replaced with something more specific
>   such as enabling the returning of the Source URI of the document
>   that contained the trible.
> That is, I agree that 4.2 Provenance should be a requirement. However,
> now that I think about it a bit more, I'm not sure you can always give
> a source URI for every triple; what about ones generated by inference?
> I'm wondering if anyone else has an opinion about this?

We use bNodes (or something similar, a controlled URI space in some
versions) to represent the source of inferred triples.

- Steve 

Received on Saturday, 19 June 2004 06:08:46 UTC