RE: Dark triples motivation

Jeremy:
> >In daml+oil this is said:
> >
> ><rdf:Description rdf:about="#John">
> >    <rdf:type>
> >     <daml:class>
> >       <daml:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="daml:collection">
> >          <daml:class rdf:ID="Employee"/>
> >          <daml:class rdf:ID="Student"/>
> >      <daml:intersectionOf>
> >     </daml:class>
> >    </rdf:type>
> ></rdf:Description>
> >
> >If we leave the daml class expression:
> >
> >
> ><rdf:RDF>
> >     <daml:class>
> >       <daml:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="daml:collection">
> >          <daml:class rdf:ID="Employee"/>
> >          <daml:class rdf:ID="Student"/>
> >      <daml:intersectionOf>
> >     </daml:class>
> ></rdf:RDF>
> >
> >as unasserted

DanC:
> What do you mean by that? I expected some syntactic way to tell
> which triples are asserted and which aren't. I don't
> see any such clues. Help?

I have been assuming minimalist syntax for darkness.
i.e. We have dark graphs. So a graph with dark triples is serialized as two
graphs, one dark and one light.
This can be done in two separate files, or as two rdf:RDF elements in the
same file.
The former would require a one sentence change to the RDF specs, and was, at
the f2f, apparently acceptable to the advocates of the dark triple approach
(much to my surprise).

I note a small bug with the example above in that the dark class expression
is unnamed. I need to assign it a gensym in order to refer to it from the
asserted graph.

DanC:
> It's still not to the point where I can write test
> cases to crystalize the issue.

You and me both.

Jeremy

Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 04:36:34 UTC