[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Thanks for the pointer Jonathan, I think I mentioned I'm still plowing
through the new suite.
I certainly wouldn't have taken the same interpretation. If this is for
legacy purpose only then I would have expected an explicit statement of its
deprecation, however gentle.
Ok, so how does one tell where a statement came from?
Let's say I have a triple database for my address book. My auntie sends me
her contact details in an RDF document. Shortly after sending, she realises
that she made a mistake on the address and so corrects this and send the new
document. Unfortunately, I receive the second document before the first. The
documents each contain a datestamp, expressed as an RDF statement about that
document. I have received all the information necessary, but how do I know
from the triples I've received which is the current address?
Cheers,
Danny.
-----------
Danny Ayers
Semantic Web Log :
http://www.citnames.com/blog
"The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne." - Chaucer
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jonathan@openhealth.org]
>Sent: 20 November 2002 04:44
>To: Danny Ayers; Shelley Powers; uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com
>Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
>Subject: Re: [xml-dev] RDF for unstructured databases, RDF for axiomatic
>
>
>
>Danny Ayers wrote:
>
>> ... Reification shouldn't be the 'big ugly' (as Shelley
>> nicely put it) to be avoided by sensible developers, it should be a big
>> friend.
>>
>
>I suggest you read the discussion of RDF reification and RDF containers in
>the RDF Semantics WD, http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/
>
>[[
>RDF provides vocabularies which are intended for use in describing
>containers and bounded collections, and a reification vocabulary to enable
>an RDF graph to describe, as well as exhibit, triples. Although these
>vocabularies have reasonably clear informally intended conventional
>meanings, we do not impose any further formal semantic conditions on them,
>so the notions of rdf-entailment and rdf-interpretation apply to them
>without further change. They are discussed here in order to
>explain both the
>intuitive meanings intended, and also to note the intuitive consequences
>which are not supported by the formal model theory.
>]]
>
>The RDF Semantics politely gives the reification vocabulary no formal
>meaning -- it is in RDF for 'legacy' purposes, but doesn't add anything to
>RDF. In short -- forget it, don't even try. It has no meaning.
>
>RDF containers are the most B.A.D. part of RDF (IMHO), and likewise RDF
>containers are not given a formal meaning in the RDF Semantics.
>
>There isn;t much point in discussing either of these topics further, they
>are included in RDF for legacy purposes but left *undefined*. This is a
>polite way of saying that both of the above are *useless* -- you can't even
>argue the topic, because the WD gives no meaning over which to argue -- the
>ultimate in damned by faint praise.
>
>Jonathan
>
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
>initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
>The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
|
