- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2001 10:45:36 -0500
- To: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- CC: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Jan Grant wrote:
[...]
> While I have held, in principle, what I'd characterise as DanC's opinion
> here (or the more extreme version: "alt is totally broken")
I'm not saying it's broken; I'm just saying it's not magic.
It's very mundane; from the MT perspective,
it means no more or less than any
other class (Apple, Bananna, Integer, ...).
> - that is,
> that an app can infer what it likes, an alt-unaware MT is going to
> produce an odd semantics for something like
>
> <doc1> <dc:creator> _:a .
> _:a <rdf:type> <rdf:Alt> .
> _:a <rdf:_1> <jan> .
> _:a <rdf:_2> <dan> .
>
> ("doc1 was written by either jan or dan") - I don't see how you can
> ignore alt in the MT and get this interpretation, no matter how you go
> about it.
I interpret that n-triples fragment not as "doc1 was written
by either jan or dan" but
doc1's has a creator value which is a collection including
jan and dan; this collection is the sort where folks conventionally
choose
one from the collection, rather than using all of them.
Again, suppose the graph had a Bag rather than an Alt:
<doc1> <dc:creator> _:a .
_:a <rdf:type> <rdf:Bag> .
_:a <rdf:_1> <jan> .
_:a <rdf:_2> <dan> .
We don't license the inference that
<doc1> <dc:creator> <jan>.
in that case, do we? No. Then why should rdf:Alt have any magic
associated with it?
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 3 September 2001 11:46:45 UTC