Re: How do RDF and Formal Logic fit together?

From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@home.com>

> > Personally I don't think think it's necessary to have a globally unique
ID
> > for each triple and it may actually be misleading.   A triple only has
> > meaning within a context.  If I assert the triple {:Goor :won
> :Election2000}
> > it has a totally different meaning than if the US Electorical College
had
> > asserted that same triple.  I suppose there are context independant
> triples
> > ... but I haven't personally run into any yet ... have you?   I think
the
> ID
> > of a triple should be stamped locally by the person reading or writing
the
> > triple within some context.

Let me flame myselfe here before anyone else does ... there are many context
independant triples .. and context sensitivity or not has very little to do
with any statement id ... sorry I misspoke.

> Well, I'm not sure  - I was speculating that when to emit a globally
unique
> ID (or whether to do so) would be covered by  the mapping I mentioned.
You
> could also have statement ids that were unique to a particular
> serialization, too.  That would capture your kind of example, wouldn't it?

I still don't see the use of a *globally unique* statement ID since the
triple itself is already quite unique.  But I would stamp each statement I
read with a simple serial number - that way I can always refer to it without
quoting it;  and can easily put it in this or that context .... but that
serial number would be useless to any process outside of my application.
The context in which you find the already globally unique triple is what is
important ... and that can be expressed with another triple of the sort:

   {ContextA collects StId12345}

> However this goes, the identifiers generally exist just waiting to be
> exposed, so why not make it possible to do so?

Yes, but exposed to the application code, not to the outside world.

Seth Russell

Received on Saturday, 13 October 2001 22:59:43 UTC