- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: 2002年10月27日 12:21:44 -0800
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: fmanola@mitre.org, "www-rdf-comments@w3.org" <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, "Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com" <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Message-ID: <3DBC4AD8.9070800@robustai.net>
pat hayes wrote: > If we have ways of stating the boundaries of > documents/databases/whatever, and of referring to them (perhaps > implicitly) and saying explicitly that something follows from this > bounded thingie alone, then we could say a lot of things that we are > unable to say right now. And it wouldn't be rocket science to provide > for saying things like this. No argument there. Well why can't we just do that? Why not standardize on a URI for the abstract graph represented by the document at <foo>? It could always be <foo#ThisGraph>. The RDF MT could give us the entailment: <foo#ThisGraph> representedBy <foo> The "#ThisGraph" would be a syntactic constant in RDF just like 'rdf:about'. This would go along with TimBl's conception that URIREF's with fragments denote abastract things in RDF while URI's without fragments denote documents. I think N3 already has something like this. .... just a Sunday morning though Seth Russell http://radio.weblogs.com/0113759/
Received on Sunday, 27 October 2002 15:22:17 UTC