- From: Butler, Mark <Mark_Butler@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 14:39:40 +0100
- To: "'Jason Kinner'" <jason_kinner@dynamicdigitalmedia.com>, www-rdf-dspace <www-rdf-dspace@w3.org>
Hi Jason > By using "sameIndividualAs", I was hoping to make explicit > that the current > version of X is X, version Y. In other words, you can follow the > "sameIndividualAs" arc at any time to determine the current > revision of a > particular item. Sure, I understand that. It's just by using that property an OWL processor will infer a set of entailments that you don't intend. So you really want to avoid that. Dave R was quite right, I got the class hierarchy relationship upside down for owl:sameIndividualAs and dcq:modificationOf. > Perhaps there should be a sub-property of hasModification and of > sameIndividualAs that is currentModification? That's a different question. In this system, I don't think you want to modify the graph. Once something is written to the graph, it is never deleted. That way you guarantee the history system. So this means that if you need to determine current modification in the history system, you do it by a query rather than altering the graph. All graph manipulations are non destructive. Having a property like currentModification would entail altering the graph when a new modification was needed. So my guess is that should be avoided. Dr Mark H. Butler Research Scientist HP Labs Bristol mark-h_butler@hp.com Internet: http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/marbut/ >
Received on Monday, 19 May 2003 09:40:03 UTC