Re: Test cases: source of a triple

On Wed, 2004-09-01 at 19:00, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:28:40AM +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 06:37:58 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> > > My next example (3) then highlights an interaction of SOURCE and inference
> > > if we attempt to use the natural result from case 2.  Others advocate that
> > > SOURCE reflect the origin graph in the aggregation.  What if it can arise
> > > across the aggregations? Are we saying that inference *can't* be done in
> > > this case?
> > 
> > I havent seen anyone else argue for inferred triples being the the graph
> > of one of the ground triples that lead to the inference. It seems like an
> > odd decision.
> > 
> > If you place inferred triples in another SOURCE/graph (which seems
> > reasonable to me) then these problems go away.
> 
> 
> I propose that we not worry about where the inferences go -- leave
> that to the various engines. They can associate them with whatever
> URI or bnode they want. Further, they can add a bunch of proof
> properties if they want. Some group can define those properties
> after they've been better explored, just as they could say that
> 
>   SOURCE ?foo (?p ?s ?o)
> really means
>   ?rt rdf:predicate ?p.
>   ?rt rdf:subject ?s.
>   ?rt rdf:object ?o.
>   ?rt rdf2:label ?foo.

nope; that's got the same use/mention bugs that permeate the
original RDF specs.

hence the new swap/cwm reification design.

> By defining a syntax by which our language gets at this provenance
> data, we get to duck the hard questions of how that provenance data
> projects into the RDF world. Call me a coward, but that seems like
> a good idea to me.

Maybe the general idea is good, but the specifics above are no good.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Thursday, 2 September 2004 00:13:36 UTC