- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 12:44:08 -0600
- To: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
- Cc: RDF-WG WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Mar 6, 2012, at 10:33 AM, Guus Schreiber wrote: > Pat, > > Thanks, very nice categorization. I propose to use this as discussion point for tomorrow's telecon to see whether we can reach consensus on these three views. I interpret this as a top-down description of the same/similar distinction Sandro was trying to achieve when he talked about semantic distinctions required to cover the archetypical use cases [1]. > > Guus > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs-Designs > I should have done this, sorry. Brief summary. 1.2.1 = Case 1, 1.2.2 = Case 2 if the truth of the triples is considered time-dependent (which seems likely), otherwise case 1. 1.2.3 = Case 1. 3. = Case 3. 4 = Case 3 5 = Case 3, I think. (Because of the self-reference implied by the < >. Basically, any time we use the IRI machinery to refer to a graph in an RDF triple then we are using case 3.) 6 I am really not sure about. It uses case 3 for sure, but it might also be using case 2. Pat (in haste) ------------------------------------------------------------ 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
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2012 18:44:47 UTC