W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > March 2004

RE: Graphs: intension and extension

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 09:19:19 +0100
To: patrick.stickler@nokia.com, chris@bizer.de, phayes@ihmc.us, www-archive@w3.org
Message-Id: <200403160919.19313.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

> Where did YOU find out about N3 at this level of detail? 

Easy to attack.

>>Given that
>>this paper is likely to be an aggressively anti-N3 paper ever (it needs to
>>describe log:implies as incoherent or worse),

>Do we need to get into that issue?

Yes: two reasons:
 a) N3 formulae is one of the most deployed `solutions' to contexts etc. and 
the topics of provenance, context, and embedding logic in RDF do get muddled, 
and we need to make it clear that we are opposed to that latter.
 b) Patrick and I have gone public with log:implies paradox being an issue for 
named graphs so reviewers are likely to require a solution

I found it came to less than a page to express the arguments why log:implies 
as documented is broken.
>I(n) = GN(n) for n in the set of graph-reference names; and
>for all n such that <I(n), agent> in IEXT(I(rdfg:assertedBy)), 
>I(GN(n)) = true .

looks like the right direction to me ...

>If the bnode scope is the entire web, then you don't gain anything by 
>using them as names. 

Agreed wholeheartedly.

>If its not, what is it?

In the Carroll/Stickler paper it was a file that contained a number of named 
graphs - i.e. this usage cannot be expressed with RDF/XML but you need new 
syntax. Two such files using different bnode labels but otherwise identical 
are not different in an interesting way.

Received on Tuesday, 16 March 2004 03:20:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:32:25 UTC