- From: Samuel Yang <syang@peoplemoverinc.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 13:54:46 -0700
- To: "'John Cowan'" <cowan@locke.ccil.org>, "'Eric Prud'hommeaux'" <eric@w3.org>
- Cc: Samuel Yang <syang@peoplemoverinc.com>, "'Dan Brickley'" <Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk>, "'www-rdf-comments@w3.org'" <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, "'rdf-dev@mailbase.ac.uk'" <rdf-dev@mailbase.ac.uk>
(To those interested in following this thread, I will post my future responses only to the 'www-rdf-comments@w3.org' mailing list.) John, I disagree. RDF is a way to specify just "facts". If "app2" wants to state that it believes that (#A, #B, "2") is true, it needs to state that as a reified Statement, as specified in section 4 of the RDF Model & Syntax Spec. For example, the set of triples for such a reified Statement "S" might look like the following (assuming that the "x:assertedBy" Property is defined somewhere): (rdf:type, #S, rdf:Statement) (rdf:predicate, #S, #A) (rdf:subject, #S, #B) (rdf:object, #S, "2") (x:assertedBy, #S, "app2") Note that (#A, #B, "2") does not appear anywhere. -----Original Message----- From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan@locke.ccil.org] Sent: Friday, April 09, 1999 12:20 PM > Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: > > app1 adds (#A, #B, "2") > > app2 adds (#A, #B, "2") > > app1 dels (#A, #B, "2") > > app2 queries for (#A, #B) values and should get "2". > That depends on what the semantics of deleting statements might be. > If deleting a statement merely means that *you* are no longer > asserting it, then the above is correct, but has nothing to do > with literals: all would be the same if "2" were replaced by #C. > But if deletion means that the statement is not *true*, then app2 should > fail. > In general RDF has no mechanism for dealing with agents who think > they know contradictory things.
Received on Friday, 9 April 1999 16:53:35 UTC