- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:45:27 +0000
- To: Bob MacGregor <macgregor@ISI.EDU>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Hi Bob
When writing the paper, we discussed this particularly point, i.e. whether
"asserted" could be a triple or not. I argued that it could not be, because
you need to know where to start when reading what the propositional intent
of a document is.
For instance a graph
_:a :-
{ _:a trix:asserted "false" }
must be unasserted, but in a curious sort of way that is because we are
first reading it as asserted to learn that it is unasserted.
Worse is:
_:a :-
{ _:b trix:asserted "false" .
_:a trix:asserted "true" .
}
_:b :-
{ _:a trix:asserted "false" .
_:b trix:asserted "true" .
}
Where one of the two graphs can be read as asserted and the other as
unasserted, but we don't know which.
My take is that in general you are right, properties of graphs should just
be described in RDF, but specifically asserted has to be special.
I managed to convince to Patrick enough for the paper, but I am sure he
would be pleased if you could pull my rationale to pieces.
Jeremy
Bob MacGregor wrote:
>
> In the TriX paper, you occasionally resort to attribute
> syntax like "asserted=false" instead of triples syntax.
> Is this sugar-coating or fundamental?
>
> If fundamental, then I would guess that there is something
> wrong with your semantics, since
> assertions about graphs shouldn't get any special
> treatment. If its sugar-coating (which I hope it is),
> then I would recommend eliminating it in your text
> at least in the initial introduction, since it leaves
> the impression that there are two different syntaxes,
> one for assertions about ordinary "nodes" and one
> for graph nodes.
>
> Cheers, Bob
>
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2004 12:47:35 UTC