Jeremy J Carroll j...@syapse.com wrote:
Hi Peter
thank you and the WG for the time spent considering my issue.
I am sorry that you have failed to reach a satisfactory response, and
understand the difficulties involved.
My current intent is to raise a formal objection for consideration by
the
David Booth da...@dbooth.org wrote:
Pat or Sandro,
Regarding this discussion:
[[
On 09/12/2013 12:33 AM, David Booth wrote:
[Let's move this discussion to www-archive@w3.org please, as it isn't
relevant to Jeremy's comment. All follow-ups there please.]
On 09/11/2013 10:32 PM, Pat Hayes
I am happy either way, since the sentence is not that formal I saw no reason to
over-egg the correctness, and I preferred some slight readability: I see the
matter as editorial, and not one I am that concerned with.
I think your each is a clear improvement.
Since the term refer is not formally
Pat or Sandro,
Regarding this discussion:
[[
On 09/12/2013 12:33 AM, David Booth wrote:
[Let's move this discussion to www-archive@w3.org please, as it isn't
relevant to Jeremy's comment. All follow-ups there please.]
On 09/11/2013 10:32 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
[ . . . ]
But each IRI denotes
(Sorry about late response, my web access has been spotty for the last few
days.)
On Sep 17, 2013, at 6:54 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
On 09/17/2013 02:33 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
(Aside. If I just hit reply to all on these messages, it automatically
includes public-rdf-comme...@w3.org, even
(Aside. If I just hit reply to all on these messages, it automatically
includes public-rdf-comme...@w3.org, even though this is not listed as a
recipient. /Aside)
I think I understand what Jeremy is getting at. If I remember correctly, we had
very much this discussion back when we were
On 09/17/2013 02:33 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
(Aside. If I just hit reply to all on these messages, it automatically includes
public-rdf-comme...@w3.org, even though this is not listed as a recipient. /Aside)
(It's not even listed as a CC? That sounds like a serious mail client
bug)
I
Reading the message below, I think the analogies that work for you are not so
good for me.
My analogy was an rdfs:Class as opposed to a mathematical set
Pat's seems to be the ink forming the letter A as opposed to the first letter
of the alphabet
Yours seem to be the hard drive containing a
Some in line responses ...
On Sep 16, 2013, at 6:37 PM, Sandro Hawke san...@w3.org wrote:
[moved to www-archive and cc Pat for now]
So, we could scrub the idea of having a class, and instead define a property.
An alternative proposed modification, which clarifies my desired NO to your
On 09/17/2013 12:35 PM, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
Some in line responses ...
On Sep 16, 2013, at 6:37 PM, Sandro Hawke san...@w3.org
mailto:san...@w3.org wrote:
[moved to www-archive and cc Pat for now]
So, we could scrub the idea of having a class, and instead define a
property.
An
I haven't yet read your epiphany message, so maybe my comments here will
already be out of date …
On Sep 17, 2013, at 11:45 AM, Sandro Hawke san...@w3.org wrote:
On 09/17/2013 12:35 PM, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
Oh, okay. So, test case:
:gn1 rdf:namesGraph :g1;
owl:sameAs
[moved to www-archive and cc Pat for now]
On 09/16/2013 08:19 PM, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
On Sep 11, 2013, at 8:14 PM, Sandro Hawke san...@w3.org
mailto:san...@w3.org wrote:
On 09/11/2013 06:21 PM, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
This section defines a vocabulary item rdf:Graph in addition to
On Sep 13, 2013, at 9:07 AM, David Booth wrote:
On 09/12/2013 03:18 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Sep 11, 2013, at 9:33 PM, David Booth wrote:
[Let's move this discussion to www-archive@w3.org
Sure. I thought we were doing that, in fact. Sorry about the slip
there.
please, as it isn't
On 09/12/2013 03:18 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Sep 11, 2013, at 9:33 PM, David Booth wrote:
[Let's move this discussion to www-archive@w3.org
Sure. I thought we were doing that, in fact. Sorry about the slip
there.
please, as it isn't relevant to Jeremy's comment. All follow-ups
there
On Sep 11, 2013, at 9:33 PM, David Booth wrote:
[Let's move this discussion to www-archive@w3.org
Sure. I thought we were doing that, in fact. Sorry about the slip there.
please, as it isn't relevant to Jeremy's comment. All follow-ups there
please.]
On 09/11/2013 10:32 PM, Pat Hayes
[Let's move this discussion to www-archive@w3.org please, as it isn't
relevant to Jeremy's comment. All follow-ups there please.]
On 09/11/2013 10:32 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Sep 11, 2013, at 5:38 PM, David Booth wrote:
On 09/09/2013 02:51 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
The question though is,
On 26/07/13 23:21, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
Ah, and I just came across some other relevant text:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-sparql11-query-20130321/#namedGraphs
The |FROM NAMED| syntax suggests that the IRI identifies the
corresponding graph, but the relationship between an IRI and a graph
On Jul 26, 2013, at 5:21 PM, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
Ah, and I just came across some other relevant text:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-sparql11-query-20130321/#namedGraphs
The FROM NAMED syntax suggests that the IRI identifies the corresponding
graph, but the relationship between an
I slept on Eric's question for several days ….
I ended up realizing that another aspect of the current drafts that I feel
should change a bit is:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-mt/index.html#rdf-datasets
When a graph name is used inside RDF triples in a dataset it may or may
On 07/26/2013 12:37 PM, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
I slept on Eric's question for several days ….
I ended up realizing that another aspect of the current drafts that I
feel should change a bit is:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-mt/index.html#rdf-datasets
When a graph name is
Ah, and I just came across some other relevant text:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-sparql11-query-20130321/#namedGraphs
The FROM NAMED syntax suggests that the IRI identifies the corresponding graph,
but the relationship between an IRI and a graph in an RDF dataset is indirect.
The IRI
On 07/26/2013 06:21 PM, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
Ah, and I just came across some other relevant text:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-sparql11-query-20130321/#namedGraphs
The |FROM NAMED| syntax suggests that the IRI identifies the
corresponding graph, but the relationship between an IRI and a
Aside from any issues that I have with semantics, the ability to infer
equality would produce a very big change in RDF reasoning.
peter
On Jul 15, 2013, at 5:39 PM, Sandro Hawke san...@w3.org
mailto:san...@w3.org wrote:
It follows from this dataset:
a rdf:DirectDataset.
GRAPH _:a { s p
On 07/17/2013 11:27 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
Aside from any issues that I have with semantics, the ability to infer
equality would produce a very big change in RDF reasoning.
True, but it seems to me that in practice, people pick and choose the
bits of the reasoning they want to
On Jul 15, 2013, at 5:39 PM, Sandro Hawke san...@w3.org wrote:
Equality is another perfectly good way to distinguish them (we don't need
time).
agreed - and interesting.
I suspect that what you call DirectDataset may be incoherent …. I will have a
think
My previously linked 2004
OK - I am getting started on this …
how about this dataset:
a rdf:DirectDataset.
GRAPH _:a { _:a _:a _:a }
GRAPH _:b { _:b _:b _:b }
does _:a = _:b?:
Or this one
a rdf:DirectDataset.
GRAPH _:a { s p o }
GRAPH _:b { s p o }
GRAPH _:c { _:a _:a _:a }
GRAPH _:d { _:b _:b _:b }
does _:c =
I don't see that any of these inferences follow in RDF, and I don't see why
they should follow at all. Just because two names are names for the same
thing doesn't mean that they are the same name.
peter
On 07/16/2013 07:37 AM, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
OK - I am getting started on this …
On 07/16/2013 10:37 AM, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
OK - I am getting started on this …
Thanks for helping me think this through
how about this dataset:
a rdf:DirectDataset.
GRAPH _:a { _:a _:a _:a }
GRAPH _:b { _:b _:b _:b }
does _:a = _:b?:
No.
background: The strings _:a and _:b
On Jul 16, 2013, at 8:39 AM, Sandro Hawke san...@w3.org wrote:
Or this one
a rdf:DirectDataset.
GRAPH _:a { s p o }
GRAPH _:b { s p o }
GRAPH _:c { _:a _:a _:a }
GRAPH _:d { _:b _:b _:b }
does _:c = _:d ?
Nope.
Oh that one surprise me, I would have thought with graph
On 07/16/2013 03:45 PM, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
On Jul 16, 2013, at 8:39 AM, Sandro Hawke san...@w3.org
mailto:san...@w3.org wrote:
Or this one
a rdf:DirectDataset.
GRAPH _:a { s p o }
GRAPH _:b { s p o }
GRAPH _:c { _:a _:a _:a }
GRAPH _:d { _:b _:b _:b }
does _:c = _:d ?
Nope.
off-list but public response, so we can continue informally for a bit.
(this is what I should have done the first time, given the current
rather strict rules about public-rdf-comments, because it had gotten out
of control.)
On 07/15/2013 11:14 AM, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
Hi Sandro
to
31 matches
Mail list logo
