- From: Tim Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2011 18:49:19 -0500
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi, Luc! Sent from my iPhone On Nov 6, 2011, at 17:44, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > Hi Tim, > > We need to explore this in detail. > To me, it is crucial to be able to assert that entity e1 in account acc1 is complementOf entity e2 in acc2. Absolutely. > How do you propose doing this? Would the one triple :e1 prov:wasComplementOf :e2 . work? This would stand independent of what account the entities are in -- which gets to the point I was making that the asserter needs to make distinct URIs and not depend on some account-based scoping mechanism to establish its identity. Perhaps I am misinterpreting DM again from a "too RDF" perspective like the literal versus URI discussions earlier today. Best, Tim > > > > Professor Luc Moreau > Electronics and Computer Science > University of Southampton > Southampton SO17 1BJ > United Kingdom > > On 6 Nov 2011, at 21:24, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote: > >> By "appropriately scoped", I mean "predefined, consciously selected; URIs". >> >> the note "refer to an identifier in the scope of a given account" sounds like we are going to permit lazy naming that can be computed in the future, which current named graph implementations do not support. >> >> -Tim >> >> >> >> On Nov 6, 2011, at 2:32 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: >> >>> Hi Tim, >>> >>> What do you mean by appropriately scoped? >>> >>> Luc >>> >>> >>> >>> I propose that we require the asserters to define appropriately-scoped URIs for their identifiers. Letting them be lazy up front will cause headaches when actually trying to use it. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
Received on Sunday, 6 November 2011 23:52:29 UTC