- From: Peter Crowther <peter.crowther@networkinference.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:05:30 -0000
- To: "'Tim Berners-Lee'" <timbl@w3.org>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> From: Tim Berners-Lee [mailto:timbl@w3.org]
[...]
> By all means say {<http://robustai.net/~seth/index.htm> is
> con:homePage of [ con:nickName "Seth"; a con:Person]
>
> But don't say <> a :Person, because
> <http://robustai.net/~seth/index.htm>
> is a web page and web pages are not people.
[...]
This is suddenly starting to look much more like the topic/occurrence split
in topic maps, but without the clear definition of a topic. Now we've
introduced a separate concept of (if I've read it right) an anonymous node
of class con:Person and with nickname "Seth".
Would current model theories deal appropriately with this if another
fragment of RDF made an assertion about a different anonymous node of class
con:Person and with nickname "Seth"? And what is 'appropriately' here?
Should those two nodes be merged, on the assumption that they are somehow
referring to the same thing, or kept separate?
- Peter
Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2001 04:06:26 UTC