- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 21:08:47 +0100
- To: "R.V.Guha" <guha@guha.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 09:06 AM 6/25/02 -0700, R.V.Guha wrote: >I'd like to reiterate Pat's point. > >If darkness is specified by the addition of something to the graph, then >there is no way to avoid non-mon. We have been over this many times now. >Could we please stop reopening this issue? > >Jan, same problem occurs with your proposal too. Let us suppose a file >contains: > ><rdf:Descrpition rdf:about="eg:foo"> > <eg:blah>wibble</eg:blah> ></rdf:Description> > >Nothing is dark here. I then merge this with another file containing > ><rdf:Descrpition rdf:about="eg:foo"> > <eg:blah rdf:dark="yes">wibble</eg:blah> ></rdf:Description> > >I have essentially retracted statements from the first file without >touching it. I disagree: I say there are two instances of eg:blah in the merged graph -- one is dark, the other is not. The one that is not dark is not darkened by the one that is. I thought you had accepted (or acknowledged) this interpretation during thew F2F discussion. Yes, this presumes an extension to the graph syntax as currently defined. >Darkness specification has to be *in the language*, not in a particular >file using the language. I agree with that bit. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2002 16:19:54 UTC