- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 15:04:20 +0100
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 30/09/11 13:59, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > 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 I understood Sandro's remark coming out of the discussion about provenance on the web and so I took generalising to any URI scheme for other situations as read. Andy > >> >>> 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 14:04:50 UTC