W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > December 2013

RE: RDF 1.1: "Some properties may change over time." (ISSUE-178)

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 23:24:25 +0100
To: "'Thomas Baker'" <tom@tombaker.org>
Cc: "'RDF Working Group'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <03c801cef5f6$96040990$c20c1cb0$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 8:31 PM, Thomas Baker wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 06:08:29PM +0100, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> > I think something like
> >
> >     A relationship that holds between two resources at one time
> >     (i.e., an RDF statement) may not hold at another time.
> 
> Hmm, but could this wording be read as implying that a statement
> actually _is_ a relationship? It's more like a statement asserts a
> relationship.

Hmm... yeah, maybe.

 
> > or even just
> >
> >     An RDF statement that holds at one time may not hold at another
> >     time.
> 
> However, an RDF statement would continue to "hold" its meaning, even if
> its
> relationship to reality were to change (because reality changes).  The
> challenge is to avoid the impression that properties or statements are
> themselves mutable, as opposed to the relationship between two
> resources.  This
> can perhaps be avoided if it's the "relationship between two resources"
> that "holds".   How about:
> 
>       A relationship that holds between two resources at one time, as
>       asserted by an RDF statement, may not hold at another time.
> 
> or
> 
>       A relationship that holds between two resources, as asserted by
>       an RDF statement at one time, may not hold at another time.

Works for me. We could perhaps make it even simpler by just saying

   A relationship that holds between two resources at one time
   may not hold at another time.


Thoughts?


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Tuesday, 10 December 2013 22:24:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:18 UTC