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

Re: Slides for Berlin Data Workshop

From: James Anderson <anderson.james.1955@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 14:39:49 +0100
Message-Id: <83E998BC-6CFD-43FC-AE0E-734040014B9C@gmail.com>
To: Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>

> On 2019-02-27, at 14:20:27, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr> wrote:
> 
> 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”?”

it is nice that you did understand what i meant.
sorry for the confusion.

> 
> 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, in any case, this reads as if you agree that interpretations exists, that is, it is a case where rdf has been used to describe an rdf graph.

> 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.
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2019 13:40:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 February 2019 13:40:15 UTC