W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > February 2019

Re: Slides for Berlin Data Workshop

From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 14:20:27 +0100
To: public-linked-json@w3.org
Message-ID: <d90d6521-a7cc-6ab5-4186-7de895a68142@emse.fr>
Le 27/02/2019 à 13:18, james anderson a écrit :
> good afternoon;


Good afternoon (or morning, or evening, if you are on another side of 
the planet).

> 
>> On 2019-02-27, at 10:19:34, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr> wrote:
>>
>> Sandro,
>>
>>
>> In my opinion, this topic should not be debated in the JSON-LD group. It is of course appropriate for the N3 group though.
> 
> as this topic an aspect of using json-ld, this group seems a fine place to discuss it.

I guess that in a community group especially, we can afford to talk 
about various related topics, so yes it's fine.

>>
>> Since you ask about graph metadata, I would never use RDF to describe RDF graphs. I would describe the files, or the information resources that encode RDF graphs. These things have a creator, a creation date, access rights, etc. RDF graphs (i.e. sets of RDF triples) are not created. They all are existing in the set of all RDF graphs at the same time.
>>
>> In this regard, the interpretation of Carroll et al. is superior: by interpreting the graph name as the named graph pair, you can distinguish the creation dates of two graph-encodings:
>>
>> <#mygrah> dc:created "2019-02-26T16:53:42+01:00"^^xsd:dateTime .
>> <#yourgrah> dc:created "1999-01-01T00:00:00Z"^^xsd:dateTime .
>> <#mygraph> { <timbl> a <Person> }
>> <#yourgraph> { <timbl> a <Person> }
>>
>> If <#mygraph> and <#yourgraph> are interpreted as the graph "{<timbl> a <Person>}", then this graph has 2 creation dates, which is probably not what you want with your metadata.
> 
> how is the not using "RDF to describe RDF graphs”?

I don't understand. Maybe you mean "how is *this* not using “RDF to 
describe RDF graphs”?"

In this case, it is using RDF to describe a named graph pair (n,g). This 
could be thought of as an abstraction of the fact that the URI n has 
been set up at a certain point in time by someone to return a 
representation of g when the URI is looked up. In this case, the 
metadata apply to the association of the URI to the graph, which can 
have a creation date and so forth.

I neither support nor disapprove this interpretation, but I must say it 
works well for the "graph metadata" use case. Carroll et al. in their 
"named graph papers" mention these use cases and insist that the name 
should identify the pair, not the graph alone.


regards, from Saint-Étienne
--AZ

> 
> best regards, from berlin,
> ---
> james anderson | james@dydra.com | http://dydra.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Antoine Zimmermann
Institut Henri Fayol
École des Mines de Saint-Étienne
158 cours Fauriel
CS 62362
42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2
France
Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03
Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66
http://www.emse.fr/~zimmermann/
Member of team Connected Intelligence, Laboratoire Hubert Curien
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2019 13:20:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 February 2019 13:20:52 UTC