W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > January 2012

'logical reading' not about meaning: Re: Three solution designs to the first three Graphs use cases

From: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 11:03:50 -0800
Message-ID: <4F05F416.1000609@topquadrant.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Hi Sandro

I expressed my difficulties about UC3 several years ago:

The problem with 'endorses' is that the only proper legally compelling 
meaning of endorsing a document, is to endorse the words of the 
document, NOT it's meaning.
The way your text reads "agrees or disagrees" has to be about the 
triples  (as you say), not their interpretation, or we open Pandora's 
box, and o I find all three of your use cases are talking about graphs 
with essentially some way of naming them. All the problems are then 
reduced to that of time (i.e. your UC2), which is addressed on the Web 
by technologies such as the way back machine.


On 1/4/2012 10:45 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> * Use Case 3:   (suggested by sandro at 4 Jan meeting)
> A system wants to convey to another system in RDF that some person
> agrees with or disagrees with certain RDF triples.
> Solution C: use TriG or N-Quads with the fourth column being an
> identifier for an RDF Graph (g-snap), so that it can be referred to in
> the default graph.
>          { eg:sandro eg:endorses<g1>  }
>          <g1>  { ... the triples I'm endorsing ... }
Received on Thursday, 5 January 2012 19:04:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:11 UTC