- From: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
- Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 17:43:02 -0400
- To: Samuel Yang <syang@peoplemoverinc.com>
- CC: "'www-rdf-comments@w3.org'" <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Samuel Yang wrote: > (To those interested in following this thread, I will post my future > responses only to the 'www-rdf-comments@w3.org' mailing list.) I have cut back accordingly. > 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. [example snipped] Quite so; that is how an agent registers its *belief* that S, where S is some sentence. The problem is what happens when two different agents have contradictory *facts*. One of them is wrong, obviously, but there is no definition about what RDF does in such circumstances. This is why I say that the semantics of deletion matters. What does it mean to remove a statement from the database of RDF facts? There is no notion in RDF of *authoritative* claims, and probably there should be. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn. You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn. Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)
Received on Friday, 9 April 1999 17:43:20 UTC