- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 21:31:10 -0400
- To: "R.V.Guha" <guha@guha.com>
- cc: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> sandro writes:
> > <rdf:RDF>
> > <rdf:Assertion>
> > <rdf:subject rdf:resource="...some URI-Reference..." />
> > <rdf:predicate rdf:resource="...some URI-Reference..." />
> > <rdf:object rdf:resource="...some URI-Reference..." />
> > </rdf:Assertion>
> > </rdf:RDF>
R.V.Guha writes:
> Well, doesn't this say more than just the triple? It also asserts the existence of
> the reification of the triple. Beyond that, by connecting rdf:Assertion to truth,
> you open the door to things that folks like Pat don't like ...
True, true. I think every triple implies the existence of its
reification anyway, etc, so the first point doesn't bother me.
The second point -- the astounding and fantastic dangers of having a
truth predicate -- well, I think the design of the SemWeb is going to
have only-sometimes-contained paradoxes and infinite loops in a number
of annoying places, and we'll just have to deal. This is a real-world
system with lots of garbage inputs even on good days. In general, of
course, how can one argue against unspecified problems?
(Last time Pat and I talked about it, he mentioned he was imagining
the system handling billions of dollars per second, or something, and
so he wanted it, like, logically sound or something. :-) It's a nice
goal, and I do to, but... we'll see.)
> I still think rdf should have chosen s-expressions to represent the graph ...
It sure would be nice to have the deliberations of the old WGs public,
annotated, organized, etc....
-- sandro
Received on Sunday, 7 April 2002 21:33:12 UTC