Hi Ian,

On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 10:59 +0000, Ian Davis wrote:

It sounds like you are getting into the distinction between what I've been calling "core assertions" and "ancillary assertions": http://dbooth.org/2007/uri-decl/#uri-decl http://dbooth.org/2007/uri-decl/#ancillary

In a nutshell, the "core assertions" of a URI are those that the URI owner has authoritatively provided in its URI declaration, that all statement authors using that URI *should* accept (or else they should not use the URI): http://dbooth.org/2009/lifecycle/#event2 [[ Statement author responsibility 3: Use of a URI implies agreement with the core assertions of its URI declaration. ]]

For example, the assertions about <http://iandavis.com/2010/303/toucan> that you provided in <http://iandavis.com/2010/303/toucan.rdf> are *core* assertions with respect to http://iandavis.com/2010/303/toucan , because you own that URI. Thus, anyone using that URI to make RDF statements about your toucan *should* accept your assertions. (Otherwise they may be talking about a different toucan!)

However, if *I* make statements using your toucan URI <http://iandavis.com/2010/303/toucan> , my assertions are *ancillary* assertions with respect to ("WRT") that URI: other RDF statement authors using your toucan URI are free to use or ignore my statements, because they are not authoritative WRT that URI.

So, even though your URI declaration at http://iandavis.com/2010/303/toucan.rdf may make assertions about many subjects, those assertions only act as *core* assertions for http://iandavis.com/2010/303/toucan . They act as *ancillary* assertions for other URIs.

Note that the exact same assertion can be a core assertion WRT one URI, but an ancillary assertion WRT another URI. This is normal, because assertions that are authoritative WRT one URI declaration may be non-authoritative WRT another URI.

The reason for this distinction between core and ancillary assertions is to ensure that when different people talk about <http://iandavis.com/2010/303/toucan> we can know that they are all talking about the *same* toucan (at least within the limits of the ambiguity in that toucan's definition). If different statement authors http://dbooth.org/2009/lifecycle/#statementAuthor used different URI declarations for your toucan URI then they would run the risk of talking about *different* toucans. (Actually, they still run the risk of talking about different toucans, as illustrated by graphs A and C here: http://dbooth.org/2010/ambiguity/paper.html#inconsistent-merge but the risk is reduced.)

I'll address your other questions separately, so that this email message doesn't get even longer.

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.