W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > February 2013

RE: Problem with auto-generated fragment IDs for graph names

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 19:19:12 +0100
To: "'Andy Seaborne'" <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Cc: <public-linked-json@w3.org>, "'RDF-WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <014901ce0e04$74ed4d50$5ec7e7f0$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Monday, February 18, 2013 7:01 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> You, JSON-LD, can add the
> constraint that a bNode/IRI is actually referring to the graph.

if that's not standardized across all RDF dataset syntaxes you couldn't
transform the JSON-LD data to another syntax.


> (but then the graph is an abstract value - not the JSON-LD normalized
> structure, Turtle document or any specific bytes.  1, 01, +1 and all
> that).

Yes, I was always talking about the abstract construct and not the bits and
bytes on the wire.


> > If you have the following dataset:
> >
> > {
> >    _:b1 x:signature "... signature ..." .
> > }
> > _:b1 {
> >    ... some triples ...
> > }
> >
> > Do the two _:b1 above refer to the same, i.e., the named graph?
> 
> If you say they do, they do.  Ditto IRIs.

You mean the JSON-LD specification would have to say that?


> > RDF-CONCEPTS says:
> >
> >     Despite the use of the word "name" in "named graph", the
> >     graph name does not formally denote the graph. It is merely
> >     syntactically paired with the graph. RDF does not place
> >     any formal restrictions on what resource the graph name may
> >     denote, nor on the relationship between that resource and the
> >     graph.
> >
> > I read this as in the example above you wouldn't know to what the
> signature
> > applies. It may or may not be the graph. Manu's use case requires
> that it is
> > the graph to which the signature applies. That's the reason why I
> argued for
> > "bNodes MUST denote the graph".
> 
> You can add that as a requirement for JSON-LD (and that's true for
> bNodes or IRIs) - there is no need to make RDF adopt one position or
> the
> other, excluding the common current usages that we enumerated over the
> long discussions.

Really? Could you then still round-trip the data between different syntaxes
without changing its semantics?



--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Monday, 18 February 2013 18:26:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:39 GMT