W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > October to December 2002


From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 12:21:44 -0800
Message-ID: <3DBC4AD8.9070800@robustai.net>
To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
CC: fmanola@mitre.org, "www-rdf-comments@w3.org" <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, "Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com" <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>

pat hayes wrote:

> If we have ways of stating the boundaries of 
> documents/databases/whatever, and of referring to them (perhaps 
> implicitly) and saying explicitly that something follows from this 
> bounded thingie alone, then we could say a lot of things that we are 
> unable to say right now. And it wouldn't be rocket science to provide 
> for saying things like this. No argument there. 

Well why can't we just do that?   Why not standardize on a URI for the 
abstract graph represented by the document at <foo>?   It could always 
be <foo#ThisGraph>.   The RDF MT could give us the entailment:

   <foo#ThisGraph> representedBy <foo>

The "#ThisGraph" would be a syntactic constant in RDF just like 
'rdf:about'.   This would go along with TimBl's conception that URIREF's 
with fragments denote abastract things in RDF while URI's without 
fragments denote documents.  I think N3 already has something like this.  

.... just a Sunday morning though

Seth Russell
Received on Sunday, 27 October 2002 15:22:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:01 UTC