W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > January 2002

Re: review MT draft

From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 01:39:27 +0100
To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <OFB5E88C37.4DDEFE81-ON41256B46.0000FBD7@bayer-ag.com>
>>>>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.

well, I thought that *set of triples* was an RDF graph...
  An RDF graph can be defined in terms of labeled nodes and arcs
  (see Appendix A), but we will use an equivalent but more convenient
  definition, in which a graph is defined to be *a set of triples* of
  the form <S, P, O>, where P is a URI reference (in the sense of
  [RFC 2396]), which we will call auriref, S is either a uriref or a
  blank node, and O is either a uriref, a blank node, or a literal.
of course not necessarily asserted
btw, I think the flag (asserted/unasserted) is at that set/graph level
(and not at the individual triple level)
also the (de)referencing is determined by ppp
(which indeed requires builtin stuff)

>>(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.

really! I'm looking forward (and glad, because I cannot write well)

Received on Friday, 18 January 2002 19:39:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:08 UTC