- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 16:29:48 +0100 (BST)
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, pat hayes wrote: > >To be honest, I think examples like this are why we should have an > >explicit, not implicit name-based, darkening mechanism. > > I fail to follow why this kind of example would lead you to that > conclusion. BUt in any case there are other strong reasons for not > coming to that conclusion, which we have gone over now several times. > If there is any way to assert darkness, then there is no way, in > practice, to avoid nonmonotonicity. Moreover, it places an additional > burden on users and implementers, who ideally shouldnt even have to > know about this stuff almost all the time. You misunderstand; I'm not talking about an in-RDF (Guha's "same syntax") mechanism- I'm talking about explicitly flagging triples as dark using something like <rdf:Descrpition rdf:about="eg:foo"> <eg:blah rdf:dark="yes">wibble</eg:blah> </rdf:Description> rather than implicitly by examining the property URI. The burden on users and implementers, I think, is going to be there regardless. For the most part it can probably be made "invisible" to users by, for instance, having the daml:colleciton spit out appropriately-darkened triples (ie, a little bit of sugar in the right place). jan PS. Why I came to this conclusion is that I posed a simple example and got two sets of answers, neither of which was 100% accurate. I think things like the subproperty malarky are almost certainly going to crop up. I'd be happier if the presence of a darkening URI _anywhere_ in a triple caused the triple to be dark; although I've heard that that has problems too. -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk You see what happens when you have fun with a stranger in the Alps?
Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2002 11:30:27 UTC