- From: David Menendez <zednenem@psualum.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 22:51:22 -0500
- To: seth@robustai.net
- Cc: rdfig <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
At 8:34 AM -0800 2002-11-26, Seth Russell wrote: >David Menendez wrote: > >>At 12:08 PM -0800 2002-11-25, Seth Russell wrote: >> >>>Well all the triples in the graph I'm trying to come up with are >>>not encoded in *just one* rdf document. That was the point of the >>>use case at the bottom of my last post [1]. How doe we allow >>>*multiple* rdf documents to assert triples to the *same* graph ? >>> >>>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2002Nov/0386.html >>Aside from having a name for an abstract graph of information about >>cats, what is the difference between that scenario and one where >>everyone just asserts facts about their own cats and agents collect >>the information and generate their own graphs? > >Naming that which you want to find is sometimes the first step in >finding it. In this case the name of the graph is necessary so that >many agents can *cooperate* to discover it. In fact just quoting >the URI of the context on your blog should help Google do most of >the work for you. Why is it important that the information be asserted in a particular graph? To me, that just seems like an extra layer of indirection and uncertainty. If Google is reading a document at catlover.org and it runs across the statements _:x rdf:type :Cat; :called "Stassi". it can report to someone else, "According to (a document at catlover.org), a cat exists which is named 'Stassi'." If the same document instead said { _:x rdf:type :Cat; :called "Stassi" } :accordingTo <http://example.org/context/cats.rdf#ThisGraph>. Google would have to say "According to (a document at catlover.org), the graph <http://example.org/context/cats.rdf#ThisGraph> asserts that a cat exists which is named 'Stassi'." Since no document encodes <http://example.org/context/cats.rdf#ThisGraph>, we can't know for certain whether the implication is truthful. What does this get us? It doesn't help us find information about cats--in fact, it makes it *harder* to find information, because it increases the number of parties I have to trust in order to believe the information. It doesn't help us find information about a specific group of cats, because anyone can attribute facts to the graph. (Stepping back a bit...) I can see the usefulness of distinguishing between a resource and a particular graph that it asserts, but the naming convention you're proposing is problematic because it doesn't say *which* graph you're talking about. As an example, I have an RSS feed for my web site which asserts a graph, but every time I update my site, the feed changes and asserts a *different* graph. A naming convention won't work because you need to be able to say things like: { <http://example.org/feed.rdf> dcq:updated "2002-11-22" } dc:source <http://example.org/feed.rdf>; dc:date "2002-11-25". { <http://example.org/feed.rdf> dcq:updated "2002-11-27" } dc:source <http://example.org/feed.rdf>; dc:date "2002-11-27". -- Dave Menendez - zednenem@psualum.com - http://www.eyrie.org/~zednenem/
Received on Wednesday, 27 November 2002 22:49:55 UTC