W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2002

Re: silly question about rdf:about

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 21:31:10 -0400
Message-Id: <200204080131.g381VAB09729@wadimousa.hawke.org>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:35 UTC