[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xdi] notes from meeting in Nice, Jan 29 2009
Thank you Nick for your useful comments. I'm synchronizing the doc with the latest XDI-RDF specs (v12, currently it was based on v11). For the time being, I've decided to report in the document only the semantic relations which are consolidated, but yes, there may be others and I think that we should describe them as well. Could you detail a bit more which kind of relation do you see between $has and $has$a (e.g. which constraints on the set of allowed XDI statements, etc.)? Thanks, Giovanni At 07.05 03/02/2009, Nick Nicholas wrote: Thank you, useful to get that level of explicitness. I just discovered today reviewing the RDF model that = is itself an XRI for the = registry, so that =drummond => =/$has/drummond : your model addresses this nicely. You're not making any commitment about what the relationship is between +x+y and +y. I had been suggesting +x+y/$is$a/+y, but after revisiting the RDF model (and statements such as $get$a$xsd$boolean), I'm not as confident about that, so you needn't change anything. The model does not relate $has to $has$a. I think there is clearly such a relation --- the object of $has is the unique, possibly aggregate value, the object of $has$a includes those values in classes --- and it would be nice to have a diagram showing the relation between =abraham/$has$a/+son and =abraham/$has/=isaac. The relationship of $is and $is$a, on the other hand, was always somewhat murky, and it would not be useful to attempt to illustrate it. In the new dispensation, the inverting word is $is, not $a. :-)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]