Stream: ontology
Topic: GF#5174
Grahame Grieve (Feb 12 2018 at 20:17):
@Mark Kramer today we looked at GF#5174 - I still think that this is something we should do - is there any energy to do it? @Claude Nanjo @Harold Solbrig @Michael van der Zel
Michael Lawley (Feb 13 2018 at 01:09):
My concern about this item (actually the whole notion of "isModifying") is that the scope of the modification is not clear. If the modification is negating or refuting, what exactly is negated / refuted?
Grahame Grieve (Feb 13 2018 at 03:30):
the parent element, supposedly. But we can say things about that too, if it's known/knowable
Rob Hausam (Feb 13 2018 at 17:07):
It looks like this is probably doable. In doing a non-exhaustive sweep, the instances of "isModifier=true" that I saw were all either elements with required bindings or boolean (are there other possibilities, or have they been precluded?).
Grahame Grieve (Feb 13 2018 at 20:04):
I don't think we have any policy about types, but it does make sense that they have to be comptuable
David Booth (Mar 06 2018 at 20:36):
This sounds very desirable for search. I don't immediately see how it would improve the RDF semantics directly, but I think it would benefit the RDF indirectly by enabling systems to include or exclude that branch of data based on the type of modifier and the purpose at hand. I think I would have to see a strawman proposal, with specific modifier types, to analyze the idea further. It looks like a worthy goal though.
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
