To: | Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx> |
---|---|
Cc: | "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
From: | Simon Spero <sesuncedu@xxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Thu, 28 Nov 2013 21:09:40 -0500 |
Message-id: | <CADE8KM7d5OGmRXbaV-yxchO-_hkAhPhc3y2zPMdAf5L00-AG0Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
On Nov 24, 2013 6:27 PM, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@xxxxxxx> wrote: I don't think quads can be excluded from [official RDF ], broadly construed, since N-Quads (and I guess TriG) are part of the RDF 1.1 batch of candidate recommendations. I cannot understand what it would mean for the non SPO part of the quad to be part of the "triple" in the RDF graph (identity criteria alone are too confusing). I am pretty sure that having the name part of a named graph denote the graph is the least general thing for it to denote, unless a heck of lot of introspection is added. Treating it as denoting some octet string is a bit too general (though has to happen in some fashion if signatures are being generated Treating it as denoting a second graph of reified statements that could entail the graph under some extended rules of entailment seems a useful starting point (it handwaves through the introspection). RDF reification is denigrated to the extent it is not deprecated, but at least quads suggest some ways for not doing it. Provenance for a graph name might be defined so as to entail provenance assertions on reified triples. Queries on the provenance of triples in a graph from multiple sources might usefully be in the form of quad or quad-like things (but must a triple that is in two graphs be two quads, etc.?) I blame sparql. Simon _________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (01) |
Previous by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Extensional vs Intensional semantics for RDF/RDFS, John McClure |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Extensional vs Intensional semantics for RDF/RDFS [was: Proceedings: "Rules-Reasoning-LP" mini-series session-03 - Thu 2013.11.21], Matthew West |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Extensional vs Intensional semantics for RDF/RDFS [was: Proceedings: "Rules-Reasoning-LP" mini-series session-03 - Thu 2013.11.21], John McClure |
Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Extensional vs Intensional semantics for RDF/RDFS [was: Proceedings: "Rules-Reasoning-LP" mini-series session-03 - Thu 2013.11.21], Matthew West |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |