- From: Joshua Tauberer <tauberer@for.net>
- Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 11:01:26 -0500
- To: Geoff Chappell <geoff@sover.net>
- CC: "'SWIG'" <semantic-web@w3.org>
I wrote: >> provenance *requires* reification Geoff wrote: > Has anyone looked much at using anonymous predicates to deal with statements > about statements? I've played around with it some in the past -- other than > the serialization challenges it presents in some formats, it seems like a > nice solution. > > :Sky [rdfs:subPropertyOf :hasColor; :says :Geoff] :Blue. That's a really neat idea. If you do that, though, you have to make sure :hasColor doesn't actually mean something has some color with certainty, since otherwise the anonymous predicate would inherit that meaning, defeating the purpose. (You would get this meaning: "the sky *is* blue, and Geoff claimed it". That might be ok for some things, but not, e.g., trust.) x :hasColor y would have to mean "someone claimed at some time that x is colored y." (:says then means "is a property about claims made by X.") A consequence of that is you could never use :hasColor directly and mean anything useful. Since we need some predicates to actually assert something with certainty (no provenance), e.g. rdf:subPropertyOf and :says, one couldn't use this technique to attach provenance to rdf:subPropertyOf and :says statements. And, that definitely might be fine for some applications, but not all. -- - Joshua Tauberer http://taubz.for.net "Unfortunately, we're having this discussion. It's too bad, because guess who listens to the discussion: the enemy."
Received on Friday, 17 March 2006 16:01:42 UTC