Re: Implementing statement grouping, contexts, quads and scopes

On 2002-06-25 16:08, "ext Alberto Reggiori" <areggiori@webweaving.org>
wrote:

> Patrick Stickler wrote:
> 
>> On 2002-06-24 18:00, "ext Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Note that the approach I am proposing also would support arbitrary
>> "colored" triples, not just a binary unasserted/asserted distinction:
>> 
>> <rdf:Statement rdf:about="#foo"/>
>>   <xxx:bar rdf:resource="#bas"/>
>> </rdf:Statement>
>> 
>> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&xxx;bar">
>>    <rdf:type rdf:resource="#redPredicate"/>
>> </rdf:Description>
>> 
>> <rdf:Statement rdf:about="#foo"/>
>>   <yyy:bar rdf:resource="#bas"/>
>> </rdf:Statement>
>> 
>> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&yyy;bar">
>>    <rdf:type rdf:resource="#bluePredicate"/>
>> </rdf:Description>
>> 
>> <rdf:Statement rdf:about="#foo"/>
>>   <zzz:bar rdf:resource="#bas"/>
>> </rdf:Statement>
>> 
>> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&zzz;bar">
>>    <rdf:type rdf:resource="#greenPredicate"/>
>> </rdf:Description>
>> 
>> etc. where a given application (e.g. via a "color"
>> specific API) would interact with the knowledge
>> base, seeing as asserted both the fundamental
>> RDF asserted triples as well as the colored
>> triples of interest.
> 
> could you  try to make an example which uses the above syntax to encode a
> rule/formula? i.e. X=>Y

I'm not sure I could, perhaps someone else might dare to craft such an
example (if it can be done ;-)

I don't see the definition of rules/formulas as the key purpose for
this approach. But rather simply a way of expressing unasserted statements,
which may or may not have additional qualifications per the fact that
the construction is a reification (stating).

> can your syntax "scope" asserted and un-asserted as well then? i.e. doing
> things similar to the rdf:bagID effect :-)

Well, that's more than I had anticipated having added to RDF parsing
(since we want to be *very* conservative at this stage in the game)
but that said, it would seem to me to be quite reasonable
to have a similar interpretation of rdf:bagID on an rdf:Statement
element per the proposed contracted form, to group the reified triples
just as for rdf:Description.

Of course, we could also simply say that RDF as it is now defined
already provides for unasserted (dark) triples, and the nasty,
obese syntax will just have to be tolerated until RDF 2.0 ;-)

Cheers,

Patrick

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com

Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2002 09:35:39 UTC