On 13 Oct 2011, at 13:37, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote: > On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 22:58 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote: >> Actually, I want to subtly change (1). >> >> On Oct 12, 2011, at 4:04 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote: >> >>> Some of us kept talking for a few more hours. Everyone was >>> more-or-less cool with these observations about dereference: >>> >>> 1. If a system successfully dereferences URL "L" and obtains a >>> representation of an RDF graph, then <L> is a GraphContainer. >> >> That seems like http-range-14 wearing a Hawaiian shirt. >> >>> That >>> is, "L" denotes a GraphContainer. Logically, GraphContainer is >>> disjoint from foaf:Person (I think!!) so a document that includes "<> >>> a foaf:Person" is (by this proposal) logically inconsistent with it >>> being served on the Web. >> >> No, its not *logically* inconsistent. What it implies is that there is something in the intersection of foaf:Person and GraphContainer. But these being disjoint has to be part of an ontology of GraphContainers rather than a *logical* axiom, I suggest. That is, we don't build this into the very semantics. > > Agreed. I would leave this up to, for instance, the people providing an > ontology for foaf:Person to say it's disjoint from GraphContainer. > Maybe :) Can an ebook be a graphcontainer? Or a print of it? Printed on a person? Can an api like mturk that has human as the 'backend'? A gopher server? A fax system? What else could never-ever be a graphcontainer? Dan > -- Sandro > >> Pat >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 >> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office >> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax >> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile >> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:09 UTC