-----Original Message----- From: John Attig <[email protected]> Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 14:28:18 -0500
> > One of the things that makes me nervous about the semantic web world > of individual statements is that the truth value of these statements > is not assured. That is an unavoidable problem with statements on > the web, and I'm not sure there is a solution to it. However, I > would suggest that the context in which these statements are embedded > is one of the factors that enables one to assign a truth value to them. Right ! My own big problem with the RDF triples is that they are "atoms" out of context: (subject -- predicate -- object). I would prefer something like: (URI(Moby Dick) -- URI(hasAuthor/isAuthorOf) -- URI(Melville)) -- (who said so) -- (when) -- (based on what) Moreover: 1) at URI(Moby Dick) there is a "metadata record" for "Moby Dick" (the work); 2) at URI(hasAuthor/isAuthorOf) there is a "definition" of the predicate "hasAuthor/isAuthorOf"; 3) at URI(Melville) there is a "record" for Herman Melville. That is, a more "molecular" landscape. Moreover, sometimes even the predicate has some properties within the context of a particular "assertion", i.e. needs some metadata, i.e. has a "metadata record" of its own. E.g. URI(person x) -- (wasAffiliated: from ..., to ..., position ...) -- URI(institution y).... Dan Matei ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Matei, director Institutul de Memorie Culturală - CIMEC Piata Presei Libere nr. 1, CP 33-90 013701 București [Bucharest], Romania, www.cimec.ro tel. (+4)021 317 90 72; fax (+4)021 317 90 64 www.cimec.ro
