W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > July 2011

Re: (Batch) Response to SPARQL WD comments

From: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 12:52:48 +0200
To: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <201107061252.48501.kjetil@kjernsmo.net>

Sorry for the awful ping times, there are always more urgent things. :-)
Tirsdag 24 mai 2011 17:29, skrev Chime Ogbuji:
> If some RDF graph content includes some statement(s) to the effect that the
> graph content itself is a kind of thing that cannot be "content on the
> web", then it is the same ontological / web architecture paradox that you
> have here:
> http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/PatHayesAbout.html
> Which you can have with or without this protocol specification.

Right, but I'm talking specifically about resources that are documents and 
described as such.

> > To me (and I may be wrong, and I would love it if anybody could explain
> > this in clear terms if I am) a foaf:PersonalProfileDocument and some RDF
> > Graph Content are two distinct things.
> The characteristics of a FOAF personal profile document "can be conveyed as
> [an RDF document that is the content of an HTTP message and] serializes a
> named graph paired with the graph IRI in the underlying Graph Store", so
> I'm not sure why - intuitively - they are necessarily two things. Can you
> describe why you think of them as two distinct things? 

Because of the definition that "RDF document - A serialization of an RDF Graph 
into a concrete syntax." From that definition, it sounds to me that the graph 
and its serialization are two different things. Now, my confusion may not 
stem from this, but rather the difference between an RDF document and RDF 
graph content. So, what you're saying is that the actual document isn't 
identified, the graph content is, universally?

Perhaps I'm going to deep into corner cases but surely there are things that 
are specifically RDF Documents, perhaps foaf:PersonalProfileDocument isn't, 
so lets take as an example

  ex:ListofStuff rdfs:comment "An RDF Document containing a list of 
                               stuff serialized to Turtle" .

Then there is 

  @base <http://example.org/mylist> .
  <> a ex:ListofStuff .
  <#foo> a owl:Thing . 

Now, can http://example.org/mylist identify RDF Graph Content without a URI 

As a final note, I think that sentences that begin with "Intuitively," in 
specs like this is a pretty sure sign of something that will miss the 
audience. Those who do find that intuitive will not need to be told, and 
those who do not will find it daunting. Is the understanding of RDF-MT 
necessary to write a compliant implementation of the specification? If not, 
it may appear intimidating to many developers.


Kjetil Kjernsmo
PhD Research Fellow, University of Oslo, Norway
Semantic Web / SPARQL Query Federation
kjetil@kjernsmo.net           http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/
Received on Wednesday, 6 July 2011 10:53:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:11 UTC