Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Concept: Typed Versioning
> "For a graph of knowledge, order is not important,
> so long as the nodes in common between different statements
> are identified consistently." (01)
Indeed. (02)
But then RDF 1.0 syntax doesn't appear to handle polysemy in the same
namespace too well because it overloads an XML data interchange
mechanism. (03)
<s:Set>
or
<s:Set>
or
... (04)
--
Peter (05)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe D Williams" <JOEDWIL@earthlink.net>
To: <ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Concept: Typed Versioning (06)
> > But I'd like to see how other data languages (i.e. NODAL and
> > DL) model these things.
>
> Me too!
> from
> http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/RDF-XML.html
>
> "For a graph of knowledge, order is not important,
> so long as the nodes in common between different statements
> are identified consistently."
>
> Order can become important when we need to trace the
> origins of the development of the knowledge.
>
> Best Regards,
> Joe
>
>
>
> (07)