Re: Dark triples motivation

On Mon, 2002-04-15 at 12:33, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> The only problem that I see with your examples is that they concentrate on
> daml lists (daml:collection) and containers.  I see the problem much more
> as having to do with defined classes and restrictions, and lists and
> containers only showing up because they are needed in some places in
> defined classes and restrictions.

I'm still at a loss to see how 'dark triples' solves anything.
So I'd love to see an even simpler example of how it can help...
one that doesn't use lists/collections would be great.

I think I explained this in a telcon, but I don't think
it got recorded very well, so I'll reiterate:

The best way for group X to make a request to group Y
is for X to state its requirements *and* propose a solution,
as an existence proof that the requirements can be met.
Group Y then gets to either
	-- accept the requirements and the proposed solution
	-- accept the requirements but provide another
		solution that meets the requirements
		(and if this solution does meet the requirements,
		group X is pretty much compelled to accept it)
	-- push back on the requirements.

I'm starting to get a sense of what WebOnt's requirements are
here (a sane model theory with the ability to express
stuff like complement, while using RDF/xml syntax) but
I can't see a proposed solution anywhere.

Well, actually, I've seen a proposal to be able to
put rdf:RDF wherever a typedNode can go, ala:

	<rdf:Description rdf:about="#bob">
	  <com:says
	    <rdf:RDF>
		<rdf:Description rdf:about"#sky">
		  <my:color rdf:resource="http://example/vocab#blue"/>
		</rdf:Description>
	    </rdf:RDF>
	  </com:says>
	</rdf:Description>

I think that's a nifty idea; very much like N3's {} mechanism...
but I can't see how it's relevant to the layering/paradox
issues.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Monday, 15 April 2002 14:40:12 UTC