Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples


>>Some further thoughts...
>>Suppose we want to say
>>   :John a [ owl:intersectionOf ( :Student :Employee ) ] .
>>which is in triples***
>>   :John a _:a0 .
>>   _:a0 owl:intersectionOf _:a1 .
>>   _:a1 owl:first :Student .
>>   _:a1 owl:rest _:a2 .
>>   _:a2 owl:first :Employee .
>>   _:a2 owl:rest owl:nil .
>>Now suppose I'm so clumsy to create
>>   :John rdf:type _:a0 .
>>   _:a0 owl:intersectionOf <> .
>>   _:a1 owl:first :Student .
>>   _:a1 owl:rest _:a2 .
>>   _:a2 owl:first :Employee .
>>   _:a2 owl:rest owl:nil .
>>This is not to say that we should do it in that way,
>>just to say that it could be thought in that way.
>>I'm now asserting ta.n3 but what happens while
>>asserting the owl:intersectionOf statement?
>>Because we have to have a list of classes it's
>>quite obvious that we have to dereference our uri
>>to get that (functional) term in our engines.
>>Does that mean that we also have to *assert* the
>>statements in ti.n3? Not at all I think.
>>We are not ``talking'' about _:a1, but ``using'' it.
>Right, I like this idea. It is simple, straightforward, practical,
>and it requires no change to RDF (though it does come close to
>violating Dan C's notion of what it means to publish an RDF graph).
>OWL needs to add some extra meaning to RDF, but  that is what one
>would expect, and the extra meaning involved is very 'webbish' and
>natural-seeming, involving using URIs as, well, URIs.
>But I had the distinct impression that this option was ruled out at
>the Amsterdam F2F on the grounds that any solution that involved
>"lots of little files" wasn't acceptable. That was late on the second
>day, and things were a little chaotic, but since then I have been
>working on the assumption that we have to find some other way to do
>it. If that assumption is wrong, maybe someone else who was at the
>meeting can correct my memory.

That's true, is also my recollection
?? BUt before we go on, do we have a use/mention bug
in above triples*** ?? (I think we do, because
we are not ``talking'' about _:a1, but ``using'' it)

If so, then I think that knowing that _:a1 has to be
``used'' (by value) could also work.


Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2002 12:53:34 UTC