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

Re: Need input before I can address Kjetil's comment - Was: ISSUE-49 (are graphs information resources?)

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 09:55:26 +0100
Message-ID: <4BF64A7E.8070502@talis.com>
To: SPARQL Working Group WG <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>


On 20/05/2010 7:04 PM, Gregory Williams wrote:
> On May 18, 2010, at 11:21 AM, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
>
>> FYI, I would feel better about addressing Kjetil's comment [1] on this if I
>> had a sense of where others felt about this issue and gave clarification
>> regarding W3C procedure (discussed below).  I don't feel like my response
>> would represent a consensus otherwise without some feedback regarding the
>> email below.
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Apr/0001.html
>
> I think that we should consider http-range-14 as normative, but I think your changes to the wording clear the issue up. Basically, that we never talk directly about a graph, but only "networked RDF knowledge". I think its still a bit confusing that "graph URI" is used as shorthand for the networked RDF knowledge, but that's an existing problem in previous specs, so perhaps hard to fix at this point.
>
> .greg

I'll will still suport the document going forward as it is but I still 
think "knowledge" is a confusing term, especially when used in a context 
where "information resource" is being used since "knowldge" evokes 
something higher than information [1].  "RDF information" or "RDF data" 
seem better.

The "networked" is also a bit odd because the networked-ness is provided 
by HTTP, and isn't an intrinsic feature of the logcial value of the 
information.

"graph value" or "graph literal" would be my ideal choice even though it 
uses the word "graph", which on its own is the more concrete (abstract 
syntax) representation for the value.

	Andy

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIKW
Received on Friday, 21 May 2010 08:55:58 GMT

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