- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 20:48:01 +0000
- CC: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, public-rdf-wg <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Nathan wrote: > Moving on to the next question that arises, > > Sandro Hawke wrote: >> 1. A "g-box" is a container, like a "set" data structure in >> programming. It holds some RDF arcs, with their nodes. (Alternatively, >> it holds some RDF triples.). G-boxes can overlap, sharing some of the >> same nodes and arcs. Two g-boxes can happen to have the same contents >> (right now) while being distinct g-boxes. G-boxes contents can change: >> today a particular g-box might contain the triples { my:a my:b _:x. >> my:a my:c _:x }, and tomorrow it might instead contain { my:a my:b _:x. >> my:a my:c2 _:x }. > ... >> * A g-box can exist without any name or persistent way of referring to >> it; it can exist as a data structure in a running program, or I >> suppose it can exists in someone's mind. Long-lived g-boxes >> probably SHOULD be given a preferred single working URL, but there >> might be times when you do don't want to give it any, or when you >> want to give it several URLs. > > is a g-box a platonic abstraction or a concrete realisation then, as > soon as you give a g-box a name, and duplicate it such that there are > two copies both bearing the same name(s) that need synchronized, then > does the g-box also become a platonic abstraction? > > It appears to me that we have an idealized platonic abstraction here > (named g-box), and then concrete realizations of those g-box's where > their state is managed by processes via some abstract protocol which is > (partially) materialized in various concrete protocols which manage the > state of these abstract-g-box-shadows via messages / representations. > > Real world example being a named-g-box which is replicated in two or > more places. > > Discussions? a g-box is a container of statements which form a particular view of a subset of the universe of discourse, the container is stateful such that it (potentially) contains different statements over time, at any one time the statements in the container form a set which can be considered the current state of that container (g-snap) and they form a current view of a the particular subset of the universe of discourse which they describe. A g-box is a stateful abstraction whose state is managed by an abstract protocol, the abstract protocol is realized via various machine protocols which manage the state of the g-box via messages and pass full or partial representations of the current state (g-snap) in various lexical forms (g-texts). A g-box can be given a name, and when a g-box is given a name the name becomes a namespace since the g-box is a container, and this namespace serves as the scope for all things within the g-box (statements/names/nodes). Thus a named-g-box becomes an Aristotelian abstraction where the current state of that named-g-box forms a particular scoped view of subset of the universe of discourse. Since a g-box is an abstraction, it cannot be duplicated or replicated (I'm tempted to say a g-box is a Platonic abstraction and a named g-box is an Aristotelian abstraction), however two g-box's can share the same name(s) and machine protocols can be used to try and synchronize the current state of the g-box's sharing the same name such that they all offer the same view of the subset of the universe of discourse which they describe. This process can be seen as forking a g-box at it's current state to create a new g-box with the same current-state (g-snap), then pulling/pushing changes to the state in order to keep them aligned and sharing the same view / saying the same thing. make sense? So, I'm starting to get a notion that almost everything in RDF is an abstraction which has a realization.. a g-box is an abstraction who's current state can be realized via a representation of that state (a g-text), a Statement could be seen as an abstraction which is realized with a Triple, literals could be seen as platonic abstractions which are realized in a lexical form, named and blank nodes can be seen as being ultra clever in that when scoped within a g-box they can be seen as platonic abstractions offering a particular world view of what they refer to (almost with closed world semantics being inside the closure of the g-box - with optional namespace), and when viewed from outside the box they can be seen as referring to aristotelian abstractions. Likewise statements can be seen like this too, scoped within the g-box they can have closed world assumptions, be contained by the box and within a particular view of the world, and outside the box they can be considered with open world assumptions and as comprising a subset of the description of some aristotelian abstraction for which their truth value must be established. I better stop here! cheers, Nathan
Received on Friday, 25 February 2011 20:50:17 UTC