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

Comment on "Dataset HTTP Protocol": Uses of "indirect"

From: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 10:08:53 +0100
To: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Message-id: <201103251008.53996.kjetil@kjernsmo.net>

Another problem with the Dataset protocol: It seems to talk about direct and 
indirect graph identification in two different contexts. The first is to 
distinguish between direct (i.e. GET the request-URI) and indirect graph 
identification (i.e. use a graph query parameter). For want of a better term, I 
think this is OK.

However, in section 4.1, about direct graph identification, it says "However, 
in using a URI in this way, we are not directly identifying an RDF graph but 
rather the RDF graph content that is represented by an RDF document, which is 
a serialization of that graph."

I must admit that I cannot se how this usage is founded in Webarch. Quite to 
the contrary, when webarch talks about indirect identification, it is something 
quite different:
In RDF terms, this kind of indirect identification would amount to something 
<uri-of-nadia> foaf:mbox <mailto:nadia@example.com>
<uri-of-british-prime-minister> ex:residence [ vcard:adr "10 Downing Street" ]

I must admit that I get a bad gut feeling whenever I hear that a URI 
indirectly identifies something, so perhaps my gut feeling clouds my rational 
evaluation, but it seems wrong to me.


Kjetil Kjernsmo
Ph.d Research Fellow, Semantic Web
Received on Friday, 25 March 2011 09:09:31 UTC

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