- From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 20:02:08 -0400
- To: Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, public-rdf-wg <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Hi all, On Apr 30, 2012, at 6:00 PM, Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:01:23PM +0200, Dan Brickley wrote: >>> A surface is something like a bundle of overlaid layers, like a movie still >>> made up from overlaid cels. Or, put the other way, a layer is part of a >>> suface which has been peeled off and raised above the surface. (Danbri's >>> pictures work either way.) Think of the surface as the opaque background of >>> the transparent layers: bnodes are marks on this surface. We could copy a >>> layer onto another surface, for example, and then the suface idea of >>> conjunction (replacing unions and merges) works here also: to conjoin A and >>> B, just copy them both onto a new surface. >> >> That's quite interesting. It's refreshing to be able to start to articulate >> operations that work with larger units than triples. I wonder what other >> kinds of operations between graphs/layers/surfaces are useful in everyday rdf >> (/owl) life? > > The Layers metaphor fits very nicely with the notion of Levels in the FRBR use > case as described at [1]: > > This proposal views descriptions of WEMI entities as bundles of statements > made at different levels of abstraction, from the most concrete Item level > to the most abstract Work level. Multi-level WEMI descriptions specify the > characteristics that any given Item shares with other Items at the level of > Work, Expression, and Manifestation. Ideally, it would be possible to > incorporate descriptions of resources at the Work, Expression, and > Manifestation levels, maintained in a distributed manner by various > institutions, into the local descriptions of particular Items. > > (In our discussion a few weeks ago, David wondered whether the inferencing > requirement expressed therein suggests the need for a graph that holds named > graphs (nesting) [2]. I'm wondering whether the Layers idea re-frames that > question.) Yes, and neatly too. Regards, Dave > > Tom > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2012Apr/0001.html > [2] http://www.w3.org/2012/04/11-rdf-wg-irc#T16-15-09 > > -- > Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org> >
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2012 00:02:31 UTC