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. :-)
