- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 08:59:08 -0400
- To: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- CC: sandro@w3.org, ww@styx.org, richard@cyganiak.de, lehors@us.ibm.com, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 9/30/2011 8:44 AM, Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider wrote: > From: Sandro Hawke<sandro@w3.org> > Subject: Re: complete graphs > Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 07:31:26 -0500 > > [...] > >> The restriction on the fourth column is that the fourth column is the >> web address of a place (a g-box) currently serving that triple. >> (That's the architecture I'm arguing for in this morning's post to >> public-rdf-prov [1].) > > You are going to build this into the formal meaning of RDF? > That's a non-starter for me. If I understand it correctly, I think it's a non-starter for me as well. This would prohibit non-HTTP URIs from being used to as the 4th element in a quad (i.e. as the identifier of a named graph)? Lee > >> The issue about completeness is that if I want to say, as in [1], that I >> agree or disagree with a statement (or otherwise build on it), it's >> important the readers see the whole statement (or know that they are >> seeing only a partial statement). It's even more important for me to >> know if I'm seeing the whole statement before I say if I agree. > > Please, let's try to be more precise. In particular, there is > rdf:Statement, so "statement" is something that has to be carefully > used. > >> -- Sandro >> >> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-prov/2011Sep/0023 > > > peter > >
Received on Friday, 30 September 2011 12:59:51 UTC