- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 17:59:56 -0600
- To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> >>>2/ my main comment is w.r.t. the need for unasserted triples >>>i.e. one could assert e.g. rrr ppp ooo. >>>suppose rrr is a resource which is a set of triples >>>then those triples in rrr are *not* necesarily asserted >>>OK, this is when ppp is something like log:implies >>>or something else where we need dereferencing rrr >>>(or rrr could be identified by value such as in N3) >>>anyhow that rrr can be a set of unasserted RDF triples >> >>This point seems to go beyond RDF as it is currently constituted, so >>unless we plan to open up this issue of resources being sets of >>triples, I propose to ignore this issue for now. > >fair enough (for the current state of the art of RDF MT) >but I think that "resources being sets of triples" are evident Well, of course a resource can be anything, so I guess it can be a set; but saying that is one thing, and expecting to be able to get inside the set and access its contents is something else. That is a whole other issue that involves in effect adding a set theory to RDF. It might be a simple set theory, but its still a big step from here we are now. >(also in the light of tagging them or so, so this is >in a way related to the "(drop) reification" issue >and after all to the use/mention stuff) Yes, I agree it is related. > >Mind you, that might be a good issue to open up, if folk feel that it >>doesn't go beyond our charter. (?) > >I mind :-) OK, let me try to write up some ideas which arise from recent webOnt emailings together with this and maybe that will get things started. Some time next week. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Friday, 18 January 2002 19:00:01 UTC