Re: Contexts (spinoff from copy and wrap rdf statements)

Re: Contexts (spinoff from copy and wrap rdf statementTo talk about something, you need a name which denotes that something.  On the internet, a URL can serve as a name (or an alias if you need an alias for some reason).  The something that a URL denotes is (usually) a physical document on a server on the internet.  That physical document may then refer to other named entities via
cross-references, or references embedded in statements which are in the document.

Whew, the longer I talk, the more confusing it sounds.

I recommend drawing a picture showing each entity, and labeling each with its name & important properties.  In this context, what's important are the relations between the entities.
============ 
Dick McCullough 
knowledge := man do identify od existent done
knowledge haspart list of proposition

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Richard H. McCullough 
  To: Danny Ayers ; David Menendez ; rdfig 
  Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 4:51 AM
  Subject: Re: Contexts (spinoff from copy and wrap rdf statements)


  I would consider the set of statements in a document (or graph) to be a property/value of the document (or possibly a "part", but I think that's an unnecessarily complicated viewpoint).  Now you can talk about that property/value, define a truth-value property for it, etc.
  ============ 
  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.