- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 17:45:12 -0400
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>,Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>,Gregg Reynolds <dev@mobileink.com>,www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: > >On Sep 24, 2013, at 8:31 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote: > >> On 09/20/2013 04:44 AM, Pat Hayes wrote: >>> On Sep 19, 2013, at 9:52 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote: >>> >>>> .... >>>> So, I hereby propose we give up on all this until after we solve >the change-over-time problem for RDF. >>> .... >>> >>> Well, I do have other things to do in my life >> >> Sorry.... Hopefully you at least find this satisfying, enjoyable, >or entertaining from time to time. >> >>> , but I think this is a very bad stance to take. The >change-over-time-problem is not ever going to be "solved". it is not a >problem with a solution. If it were, there would be one accepted tense >logic and one accepted semantic theory for programming languages. >> >> To me, it would be "solved" if there was a way to handle >change-over-time that worked for my applications and that you didn't >think was "broken" wrt RDF Semantics. Hopefully other members of the >community would like it, too. I don't think we need the perfect >solution, or even consensus at this point. Just something that some >of us can use in our software with some reasonable hope it'll function >as expected, and not violate the specs in any problematic way. >> >>> But this type/token business does not require us to solve it. It is >a much simpler, more basic kind of clarification that does not depend >in ANY WAY on the change-over-time issue. With the greatest respect, >Sandro, your obsession with time and change has, I believe, hindered >progress here. You keep going back to that issue, even when we have >finally managed to agree (at least I thought we had) that the >surface/token/named-graph vs. abstract graph distinction did not depend >upon time or change, or even involve it. >>> >> >> I come back to it obsessively because there is such a dirth of other >use cases. (Perhaps I have a bias of wanting to solved for other uses >cases; I'm trying hard to keep that in check.) In recent weeks, I >tried to keep this discussion to being just about identity without >touching on change-over-time, but frankly I don't find the use cases >compelling. >> >> I'm now confident that you and I (and Jeremy) agree the problem we're >trying to solve in this thread is this: people seem to want to have >different properties on one "graph" than on another, even when the >"graphs" happen to have the same triples. >> >> But why do they want this? As I poke at that problem, either it >turns out this functionality doesn't actually matter to them, or they >need it because they are actually dealing with "graphs" which could at >least potentially change over time. >> >> Do you have a use case (involving RDF on computers) for having >different properties on different "graphs" (which happen to have the >same triples), and which does not involve "graphs" changing over time? > >Sure, the use case that was the primary motivation for the original >named-graph proposal, which was publishing RDF with a 'warrant' of >authenticity, in the form of a robust digital signature, and allowing >one of these to mention another using an IRI link. All this secure >fixing of provenance and authentication is meaningless if the final >contents can be changed at will; and yet it is also meaningless if >understood as applying to an abstract set. > I believe that use case can also be addressed by I(n)=g. There is no metadata about one of these "graphs" that doesn't transfer to all other ones with the same triples, so they can just be ordinary RDF Graphs. - Sandro >Pat > > >------------------------------------------------------------ >IHMC (850)434 8903 home >40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office >Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax >FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile >(preferred) >phayes@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Received on Friday, 27 September 2013 22:57:19 UTC