- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:08:55 -0400
- To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
- Cc: S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
* Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com> [2004-08-26 15:57+0300] > > > Isn't it the same in essence, except for the fact that it's > > polluting? > > > When you start doing that it becomes impossible to > > differentiate between > > > statements about the *graph* and statements about the *rdf > > document*. > > > > Only if they have the same URI. You can differentiate graphs > > with anything > > (say a bNode), and use some property to link the graph to the document > > URI. > > Right. I was not suggesting that a URI be overloaded to denote > both a graph and a serialization of that graph (document). > > I was simply suggesting that the approach Dan presented seems > analogous to making assertions about the graph in which statements > occur, from which one can infer things about those statements. It's v similar, except I really do make statements about the document rather than the things written in the document (whether conceived of as a graph, or as a bunch of statements). So the document has properties like checksum/hash, size in bytes, etc etc., as well as authorship. Works for me. cheers, Dan
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2004 13:08:55 UTC