Re: lack of support for claims regarding Concise Bounded Descriptions (see MSGs)

>I don't know if this would solve the issue.    It depends on your wording.
>
>
>Consider the graph
>	 ex:a ex:b _:a .
>	 _:a ex:c ex:d .
>The MSG of the first triple includes the MSG of the second
>triple, which includes the MSG of the first triple.  So if something is in
>the MSG then it is in, but just what is in?
>
>  
>
Actually the MSG of the first is the same then the msg of the second.  
if one is included in the other then they're the same.
i'll look into wording it better and let you know. Giving the concept i 
believe is clear what wording change would suggest?
Does it count if i show the code as definition? ;-) it is really simple.

>Yes, but the CBD is asymmetric.  The "symmetric" one is Symmetric CBD.  In
>any case I do not believe that the Symmetric CBD of a node is the union of
>the MSGs of statements involving the node.
>
>  
>
Ops!  :-) i just looked at patrik latest definition,,i really think he 
might be is making it a bit "more complicated" than it could be . he 
first goes "the opposite way" then "adds a CBD" in the end, so i dont 
believe either this ends to be the union of MSGs.
MSGs consider tripes basically undirected. (concept "involves") and 
build from there. That's why the definitions are rather simple 
afterwards (albeit wording might need improving).

However , we're starting a work together with Patrik. The point is we 
share a common goal, addressing pieces of graphs in meaningful, concise 
ways.
I believe this to be very useful as you might not want to ship across 
the semantic web whole graphs all the time (nor make remote queries all 
the time)

>>that peers dont all have to know the same thing, one might be interested 
>>justin madonna another just in that song .. the'll have some overlapping 
>>information but not all of course.
>>    
>>
>
>Suppose that you could just transfer the statements one at a time, with
>bnode identities retained.  This would allow transmittal of the entire
>graph.
>
>  
>
If bnodes can have identities that persist across models.. well they're 
not bnodes by definitions.
This transfer methodology is nice since its "transactional" in a sense, 
at each state its all valid rdf at both sides AND the "flying patch" 
across the 2 is also a valid rdf (which is great!). To merge the patch 
you just add it according to rdf semantics. "transactional" it also 
means that you can shape information into an MSG and you're sure that 
its either all there or nothing is , something important to keep the 
integrity of information inserted by people (which is then checked by 
the MSG signature). Say you want to say "the bad guys are".  if you say 
it ground triple (no bnodes) by triple you could during the transfer 
have a state where on the other end just a few bad guys show, if you use 
a bnode then the list is an MSG and is to be transferred altogether to 
respect bnodes  semantics.

Giovanni

Received on Monday, 6 June 2005 13:20:43 UTC