Re: A bit of running code for "Tim's View"

> >While "--closure=poEr" looks pretty obscure, I believe Tim thinks it
> >should be a very common way to do things.  From the docs:
> >
> >    Closure flags are set to cause the working formula to be
> >    automatically expanded to the closure under the operation of
> >    looking up:
> 
> Looking up? Or drawing conclusions??

Looking up.  Arguably "--closure" should be called "--fetch" or
"--crawl" or something.

> >
> >     s   the subject of a statement added
> >     p   the predicate of a statement added
> >     o   the object of a statement added
> >     t   the object of an rdf:type statement added
> >     i   any owl:imports documents
> 
> ? Do you mean, any owl:imports statements? (In what document?)

I would think "i" would mean that adding any triple
      ?a owl:imports ?b
would cause ?b to be loaded if ?a was already loaded.  That makes it
the OWL imports closure, right?

The "o" flag seems to subsume the "i", "r", and "t" flags, since with "o"
you'd follow the object link anyway.   Is that right, Tim?


> >My proposed generalization would be:
> >
> >    Applications which use RDF *should* offer users options for
> >    following links in the RDF and recursively including content.  A
> >    good default is to follow predicates, objects, and (for rule
> >    systems) doc:rules.
> >
> >This kind of "Applications ... *should*" is more along the lines of
> >the HTML spec (or protocol specs in general) than the existing RDF
> >specs, but it seems to me the best approach here.
> 
> ... if that really is RFC 2119 language then I think this is WAY too 
> strong at the present stage to put into anything as wide-ranging and 
> authoritative as a TAG architectural statement.

Yes, I agreee this seems more like a research conjecture than a
conclusion from years of experience in building real systems.

So what are the underlying "years of experience" principles which the
TAG *can* promulgate and which underly this code?

> >Following links seems to me very much like a reasoning step.
> 
> NO!!  Please don't say that. Why is it anything AT ALL like 
> reasoning? This is like saying taking a book of a shelf is a form of 
> reading.

Sorry -- I meant it as an analogy for illustration, not that it really
was a kind of reasoning.  (Although I was starting to explore that
cave, I admit.)  Swimming really is very much like walking, ya know?

      -- sandro

Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2003 16:24:10 UTC