[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xdi] Key implications of new metagraph $has definition
Giovanni, The proposed definition didn't say that +x+y and +x/+y are synonyms - they are not, and cannot be, since the first one -- +x+y -- is a single-segment XRI representing an XDI RDF subject and the second one -- +x/+y -- is a two segment XRI representing an XDI RDF subject/predicate relationship. The proposed definition said that +x+y and (+x/+y) are synonyms. The cross-reference parentheses around the latter are critical. It is only by turning +x/+y into the cross-reference (+x/+y) that it becomes a single XDI RDF subject. RE the three part statement +x/+y/+z, you are correct that, based on the proposed $has definition, +x+y+z cannot infer either +x/+y/+z OR (+x/+y/+z). Rather +x+y+z can only infer ((+x/+y)/+z). The proposal that +x+y+z could refer to +x/+y/+z, or even to (+x/+y/+z), was the one part of your initial proposed definition that I didn't fully understand. Now that we have a clear proposed definition of +x+y as defined above, I am satisifed. If you needs to refer to the full statement +x/+y/+z as an XDI RDF subject, then you would use the cross-reference (+x/+y/+z). Do you see any issues with that? =Drummond > -----Original Message----- > From: Giovanni Bartolomeo [mailto:giovanni.bartolomeo@uniroma2.it] > Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 9:28 AM > To: Drummond Reed; xdi@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [xdi] Key implications of new metagraph $has definition > > Hello Drummond, > > I'm still thinking at all possible implications, however I'd like to > express one first comment on this: if we assume that +x+y and +x/+y > are synonyms, we have two implications, as you properly describe: > > from point 1) we have two ways of saying the same thing > > from point 2) we have an asymmetry in case of a three part statement, > cannot use +x+y+z to refer to +x/+y/+z > > Right now +x/+y and +x+y have been thought for different purposes: the > first one to be used in query, e.g. > > =markus > $get > / > =drummond > +friend > > whereas the second one has been introduced in order to have the > possibility to assert something about +x/+y, having a way to reference > it as a new subject in the graph. > > Are we sure that we really want to use them as synonyms? > > Thanks, > Giovanni > > At 08.16 05/05/2009, Drummond Reed wrote: > It was an extremely productive XDI TC telecon this last week (see the > minutes at http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xdi/200905/msg00000.html) > because it resulted in, I believe, a precise definition of Giovanni's > proposal for the definition of $has statements. I want to reiterate that > definition here and discuss two key implications that need to be reflected > in the XDI Addressing & RDF Graph Model spec. > > 1) REVISED DEFINITION OF $HAS PREDICATE > > An XDI RDF $has statement between +x and +y, i.e., +x/$has/+y, asserts > that > +y is a predicate on the subject +x. It infers the following two XDI RDF > subjects exist: > > (+x/+y) > +x+y > > These two XDI RDF subjects are synonyms, i.e. this means the following two > XDI RDF statements are true: > > +x+y/$is/(+x/+y) > (+x/+y)/$is/+x+y > > In addition, both the subjects (+x/+y) and +x+y identify the set of all > XDI > RDF nodes that are objects of the XDI RDF statement +x/+y. > > Lastly, this definition is recursive. So the XDI RDF statement > +x+y/$has/+z > identifies the set of all XDI RDF nodes that are objects of the XDI RDF > statement +x+y/+z, and that this set can be identified by either of the > following two XDI RDF subjects: > > ((+x/+y)/+z) > +x+y+z > > This recursion repeats to any depth; ordering is always left-to-right. > > > 2) THREE PART XDI RDF STATEMENTS > > Giovanni's email > (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xdi/200904/msg00017.html) also > proposed that +x/+y/+z infers +x+y+z. However the above definition does > not > allow this. +x+y+z expresses +x+y/$has/+z, which is equivalent to > ((+x/+y)/+z). Rather, if there is a need to refer to a complete three-part > XDI RDF statement such as +x/+y/+z, the entire statement becomes a > cross-reference (+x/+y/+z). There is no shorthand for this statement. > > > 3) $HAS$A STATEMENTS NOT NEEDED > > Another key implication of this new definition is profound: $has$a > statements no longer appear to be necessary. Rather $, $a, $is, and $has > appear to be the complete set of metagraph predicates needed to express > the > fundamental relationships in an RDF graph: > > $a is an incoming arc relationship (inverse: $is$a) > $is is a self-referential arc relationship (and is its own inverse) > $has is an outgoing arc relationship (inverse: $is$has) > > This actually solves some longstanding issues around clarifying the > relationship of $has and $has$a > > If everyone is in agreement with these conclusions, I will update > http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xdi/XdiOne/RdfGraphModel to reflect them, which > will move us one step closer to publishing it as a spec. > > =Drummond > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]