- From: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@cdepot.net>
- Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 04:39:11 -0800
- To: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@virgilio.it>, "David Menendez" <zednenem@psualum.com>, "rdfig" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <000f01c292ed$538c4000$bd7ba8c0@rhm8200>
Re: Contexts (spinoff from copy and wrap rdf statementIn a confusing situation like this, you just have to step back and ask yourself, what entities do I have in reality? Say, John Doe the person graph with info about John Doe document with info about John Doe Now, what properties do each of these entities have? I think cross-reference properties are generally safe, because they're just bookkeeping, and usually not involved in any logical inferences. ============ Dick McCullough knowledge := man do identify od existent done knowledge haspart list of proposition ----- Original Message ----- From: Danny Ayers To: Richard H. McCullough ; David Menendez ; rdfig Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 3:53 AM Subject: RE: Contexts (spinoff from copy and wrap rdf statements) If you let a resource refer to itself, you can just say resource has graph = "...", document = "..." (however you want to say it in RDFS) so the graph would have a reference to itself and the document, and ditto for the document. Having such a "cross-reference" doesn't cause any problems, does it? Probably not. Aren't the graph and document "isomorphic", i.e., logically equivalent, or are you talking about a different kind of document here? Hmm - that's the crunch I suppose. A HTML document can be a resource and have a URL that can be used as its URI. But do we consider an RDF document in the same circumstances a closed box, or a bunch of 'free' statements..? Similarly, if the HTML doc (let's make that XHTML+XLink) made RDF-friendly statements ("myMetaDataHere: me.rdf") how available to the referrer should those statements (and anything else they refer to), be? I guess this is back into the "dark triples" idea. If statements are directly asserted by this then they lose their provenence, if they are quoted/reified then that brings up the question of unquoting/unreification mechanisms. Hmm... Cheers, Danny.
Received on Saturday, 23 November 2002 07:39:13 UTC