cfAssertion of another documentin thesemantic web toolbox.
In the general case, a reference to a term from another document in the Web does not imply all the assertions made in that document; for example, one document might refer to another for the purpose of refuting it. But for the case that we do want to assert the contents of another document, we have:
for hasBasis(this, that) read: that is a basis for this; i.e. this asserts that by reference; i.e. this says/implies everything that says/implies. wordnet defn: "a relation that provides the foundation for something". @@subproperty of rdfs:seeAlso:
The shoe uses-ontology relation[@@link] is a subProperty of basis, for example.
To define basis, consider the rule "if r2 is a basis for r1, and r2 says s, then r1 says s". That's a reasonable rule, assuming the Web is static, i.e. that if some document ever makes a claim, it always makes that claim. But it does not allow us to model a page about a group that says who the membership of the group is, where the membership can change from time to time.
So rather than "r1 says s" we use "m1 says s" where m1 is a particular message that exposes the content of r1 -- an HTTP reply, for example:
This rule is written in terms of a model for communications protocols.
cf notes on state; no longer trying to stick to Singular Nouns for Names
an interesting exception (found5Jan2001):
Any software licences or redistribution permissions, release status documentation, and the like you get via CVS are NOT INTENDED to have legal effect. Just because I check a document into CVS does not mean that I stand by its contents.
-- Legal notices, release status, etc in ijackson's stuff
@@candidate for superclass: wordnet Message
for consequent(m, s) read s is a consequent of m; or: the intent of m is to assert (among other things) s. compare with "gate" symbol in modal logic? cf BAN logic@@, PCA@@. For example, if an HTTP response has status 200 OK and RDF/XML content, and some statement s is in the model expressed by that RDF/XML content, then consequent(m, s). Hmm... consequent(m, s1) /\ implies(s1, s2) => consequent(m, s2).
for hasAanswer(q, a) read: a is an (the?) answer to q. For example, q might be an HTTP GET request (or a GFP ask request), and a its answer.
for precedes(m1, m2) read: m1 precedes m2, i.e. m2 happens before m1, i.e. m1 <= m2.
for subject(m, r) read: m has subject r; i.e. the subject of m is r. e.g. if you do an HTTP GET for u1, then the subject of that GET message (and its response, I suppose) is u1.
@@@
frommeeting notes
obsoletes(x, y) = y makes x obsolete
sublanguage(x, y) = x is a sublanguage of y
rdfExtractor(x, y) = y will extract RDF from x
from Jigsaw review 24 Aug 2000:
about(x, y) ::= y is metadata about x
hm... does HTML 4.0 give a name for this?
Notes:
User agents following this specification should be aware that assertions made by HTML pages are not facts, but claims. I.e., if element x claims that element y is related with relation r to element z, then the user-agent should not be entering r(y,z) into its database (i.e., "Now I know that y is related to z with the relationship r!!"). Instead, it should be entering something along the lines of r(x,y,z) into its database (i.e., "x is claiming that y is related to z with relationship r."). This is an important distinction: it's perfectly fine for HTML pages out there to be making completely false claims; one shouldn't simply accept them as truth. For similar reasons, HTML pages can only make assertions, not retractions.
shoe spec
this is maintained in HTML; see static RDF, on-demand RDF, the transformation
Dan Connolly