- From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 18:30:16 +0100
- To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 10:17:40AM -0700, Rob Shearer wrote: > I don't buy that just retrieving source information with a special query > language construct is good enough. I think people want to use it as > predicates in queries, I think they want to process that information as > true RDF, and I think that they want to use it in rules systems and > reasoning systems and all the rest. > > I don't buy that source information is the only metadata that people are > going to want to attach to triples. In addition to knowing where > something was said, people will want to know by whom, and when, and so > on and so on. Absolutly: (in quads, 1st member is SOURCE) _:s <ex:john> <ex:givenName> "John" _:s <ex:john> <ex:familyName> "Smith" _:t _:s <store:cameFrom> <http://example.com/aboutjohn.rdf> _:t _:s <dc:creator> <http://example.com/#fredBloggs> _:t _:s <dc:date> "2004-05-23" _:t _:s <store:parseErrors> "0" ... > I don't buy that people's main annotation of their RDF data should be > managed through document management. I thought much of the point of RDF > was that you could split your data into files in pretty much any way you > want. The same fact could come from many different places and it would > still all make sense. I dont agree that much of the point of RDF was that you could split your data anyway you wanted, but I dont see how any of that is contradicted. - Steve
Received on Tuesday, 24 August 2004 17:30:21 UTC