W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: ISSUE-49 (are graphs information resources?)

From: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:11:35 -0400
To: "Chimezie Ogbuji" <ogbujic@ccf.org>, "Gregory Williams" <greg@evilfunhouse.com>, "SPARQL Working Group WG" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C7FC76E7.114BC%ogbujic@ccf.org>
The question of how the clarifications I proposed addresses the ISSUE as
currently worded came up in today's teleconference.  This is my attempt to
describe this and give my input as to an appropriate response to the recent
comment on this issue [1]:

[[[
The TAG provides *advice* to the community that they may mint "http" URIs
for any resource provided that they follow this simple rule for the sake of
removing *ambiguity* (agreed on 15 Jun 2005)" [2]
]]] 

The emphasis is mine - the first indicating that (as far as I know)
http-range-14 is advice from the TAG not a W3C recommendation and it is not
clear what the procedure is regarding dependencies between REC track
documents and TAG findings - maybe the chairs, team contacts, etc. can
clarify.  The second emphasis indicates that http-range-14 is meant to
address ambiguity about what is (essentially) the denotation of a URI as a
result of interacting with it over HTTP.  Given the clarifications I
proposed (which included a clear(er) distinction between graphs, their
documents, and networked RDF knowledge), including:

[[[
Following the terminology in [AWWW], the intuition here is that messages in
this HTTP protocol use graph IRIs to access the underlying graph store.  The
graph IRIs identify networked RDF knowledge.  Networked RDF knowledge is
distinguished from other kinds of (information) resources by the fact that
they are primarily represented by an RDF document and these RDF documents
are serializations of RDF graphs in the underlying graph store.
]]]

I'm not sure where there is still ambiguity since it is clear what graph
URIs 'refer' to - we have a name for it, we have described its role in the
protocol, defined it to be a special kind of IR, and how it can be
interacted with over HTTP.

HTTP Update says "The HTTP GET method SHOULD be used to retrieve a graph
representation of the networked RDF knowledge identified by the
Request-URI." 
 
So, the response *should* include a 200 status since (by definition) RDF
networked knowledge is an IR that is *primarily* represented by an RDF
document, however, even if it returned 303 - no additional distinction can
be determined (per http-range-14).  Interactions with the protocol via graph
URIs target networked RDF knowledge rather than graphs (hopefully this is
clearer), so the question of whether an RDF graph is an IR is not relevant.

[1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Apr/0001
.html
[2]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#httpRange-14

-- Chime


===================================

P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

Cleveland Clinic is ranked one of the top hospitals
in America by U.S.News & World Report (2009).  
Visit us online at http://www.clevelandclinic.org for
a complete listing of our services, staff and
locations.


Confidentiality Note:  This message is intended for use
only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed
and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable
law.  If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or the employee or agent responsible for
delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If
you have received this communication in error,  please
contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in
its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy.  Thank you.
Received on Tuesday, 27 April 2010 15:12:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:42 GMT