- From: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>
- Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:01:53 +0100
- To: <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>, "Shelley Powers" <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Cc: "RDF-Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
Thanks for the pointer Jonathan, I think I mentioned I'm still plowing through the new suite. I certainly wouldn't have taken the same interpretation. If this is for legacy purpose only then I would have expected an explicit statement of its deprecation, however gentle. Ok, so how does one tell where a statement came from? Let's say I have a triple database for my address book. My auntie sends me her contact details in an RDF document. Shortly after sending, she realises that she made a mistake on the address and so corrects this and send the new document. Unfortunately, I receive the second document before the first. The documents each contain a datestamp, expressed as an RDF statement about that document. I have received all the information necessary, but how do I know from the triples I've received which is the current address? Cheers, Danny. ----------- Danny Ayers Semantic Web Log : http://www.citnames.com/blog "The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne." - Chaucer >-----Original Message----- >From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jonathan@openhealth.org] >Sent: 20 November 2002 04:44 >To: Danny Ayers; Shelley Powers; uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com >Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org >Subject: Re: [xml-dev] RDF for unstructured databases, RDF for axiomatic > > > >Danny Ayers wrote: > >> ... Reification shouldn't be the 'big ugly' (as Shelley >> nicely put it) to be avoided by sensible developers, it should be a big >> friend. >> > >I suggest you read the discussion of RDF reification and RDF containers in >the RDF Semantics WD, http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/ > >[[ >RDF provides vocabularies which are intended for use in describing >containers and bounded collections, and a reification vocabulary to enable >an RDF graph to describe, as well as exhibit, triples. Although these >vocabularies have reasonably clear informally intended conventional >meanings, we do not impose any further formal semantic conditions on them, >so the notions of rdf-entailment and rdf-interpretation apply to them >without further change. They are discussed here in order to >explain both the >intuitive meanings intended, and also to note the intuitive consequences >which are not supported by the formal model theory. >]] > >The RDF Semantics politely gives the reification vocabulary no formal >meaning -- it is in RDF for 'legacy' purposes, but doesn't add anything to >RDF. In short -- forget it, don't even try. It has no meaning. > >RDF containers are the most B.A.D. part of RDF (IMHO), and likewise RDF >containers are not given a formal meaning in the RDF Semantics. > >There isn;t much point in discussing either of these topics further, they >are included in RDF for legacy purposes but left *undefined*. This is a >polite way of saying that both of the above are *useless* -- you can't even >argue the topic, because the WD gives no meaning over which to argue -- the >ultimate in damned by faint praise. > >Jonathan > > > >----------------------------------------------------------------- >The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an >initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> > >The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ > >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription >manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl> >
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2002 09:13:18 UTC