

Re: A use case for anon nodes - action from telecon

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 21:44:26 +0100
Message-ID: <3B60812A.DD77C7CA@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
CC: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

pat hayes wrote:
> >Brian eventually convinced me that his example was NOT a query.
> He hasn't convinced me yet. Look, its a simple point. The scenario
> involves two agents posting pieces of RDF and someone noticing a
> relationship between those pieces of RDF which triggers some kind of
> commercial transaction.  What is that relationship? If it is that one
> of them entails the other, then the one that is entailed by the other
> was a query, in the required sense. (If it isn't an entailment, what
> is it?)

Whatever the relationship is, it is not expressed in either of 
the smears of RDF provided in this example.  Or to put it another
way, are you suggesting that it is in some way illegal for me to
describe in RDF a service that buys roses, lest somewhere, there
might be a service that sells roses and I would thus have created
a query relationship between the two and that is beyond the scope
of M&S 1.0?

> If you apply that criterion to Brian's example, and if you take it to
> be an assertion, then all that you could possibly infer is that four
> things exist and a few relations are true between them. If this is
> supposed to convey the fact that one of these things is a 'service'
> and therefore that it implies that a lot of other things exist (eg
> batches of roses which are available for sale or purchase -I've lost
> track of whether we are selling them or buying them), then something
> needs to say that.  Nothing in Brian's example seems to say that,
> however, so there is no basis for anything to be able to conclude it.

Right.  The example as originally presented was not clear enough as
much detail had been removed, perversely, to try to make it clearer.

Received on Thursday, 26 July 2001 16:47:36 EDT
