- From: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 19:52:11 +0200
- To: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, "RDF Logic" <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
>Whether triples get asserted is not entirely a local issue, nor should it >be. Hmm - I'm not convinced on either count. >Consider above, that your triples are "colored" by the base URI of their >containing document, in this case your e-mail. A little out of sync here, but in my last mail in response to Thomas' comment, I intended something similar, starting with my question "What about my implementation being told that [email:765] is purple?" (the container URI being [email:765]). Now consider a "current >document" which is identified (as always) by a URI. > >In base RDF, a triple is _asserted_ when its color (i.e. base URI) is equal >to the "current document" URI. Now how one determines the "current >document" >is outside the scope of RDF, and needs to be more formally addressed for a >semantic web to get working. Ok, I'll gladly take your word for the first statement, although I hadn't actually seen it that way (I periodically revisit the MT and usually leave none the wiser ;-) I also agree about it being outside of the scope of RDF, but I'm not convinced of the need for formalization (although it probably wouldn't hurt). I don't really see anything that might contradict my earlier inclination to leave these matters to the agent. Allowing the agent to widen or narrow the scope of the "current document", or in a similar way apply its own join semantics would strike me as advantageous, if not essential for a semantic web to get working. Cheers, Danny.
Received on Thursday, 27 June 2002 13:59:22 UTC