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>
All,

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:
http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#indirect-identification
In RDF terms, this kind of indirect identification would amount to something 
like:
<uri-of-nadia> foaf:mbox <mailto:nadia@example.com>
or 
<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.

Best,

Kjetil
-- 
Kjetil Kjernsmo
Ph.d Research Fellow, Semantic Web
kjetil@kjernsmo.net
http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/
Received on Friday, 25 March 2011 09:09:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 25 March 2011 09:09:31 GMT