Re: Multiple Named Graph

On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:21 PM, henry.story@bblfish.net <
henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:

>
> On 25 Mar 2014, at 14:59, Reto Gmür <reto@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:30 PM, henry.story@bblfish.net <
> henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
>
>> So to start from the beginnging again.
>> I checked the mentions of "named graph" in the spec.
>>
>> In the definitions section:
>> [[
>> Linked Data Platform RDF Source (LDP-RS) An LDPR<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#dfn-linked-data-platform-resource> whose
>> state is fully represented in RDF, corresponding to an RDF named graph<http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#dfn-named-graph>.
>> See also the term RDF Source<http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#dfn-rdf-source> from
>> [rdf11-concepts<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#bib-rdf11-concepts>
>> ].
>> ]]
>>
>> Section 5.1:
>> [[
>> Alternatively, servers may provide the net worth resource and supporting
>> containers in a single response representations. When doing this, a
>> preference would be for RDF formats that support multiple named graphs
>>
>
> If as you quote above, the state of an LDPR is fully represented in RDF
> why should the preference be to return a format that support multiple named
> graphs? The latter suggest the resource can be more completely represented
> using more than just RDF which contradicts the first.
>
>
> I don't agree. You can represent graphs by using datatypes that map
> strings to graphs. For example one could invent one such as
> rdf:Turtle .
>
>
> :joe :believes "<http://jane.org/#me> <http://relationship.vocab/loves> <
> http://joe.org/#i> ."^^rdf:Turtle .
>
> RDF semantics allows this to be done. It would allow you to encode graphs
> in simple RDF formats. Don't forget that
> in the RDF semantics a datatype is a function from a string to an object.
> The ones defined by xsd are numbers, binary, date.
> Nothing stops you from having maps from rdf syntaxes to the graphs they
> represent.
>
> Yes. But it change nothing to the contradiction above.


>
> It would help to understand your positions if you could state your take on
> Sandro's statements/questions.
>
> It still would.

Reto