- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 13:29:07 +0100
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-rdf-prov@w3.org
Luc, On 30 Sep 2011, at 13:29, Luc Moreau wrote: > I am surprised by your suggestion not to name g-snaps. The argument is that one can treat g-snaps as immutable g-boxes (or g-boxes as mutable g-snaps, if you prefer – it's the same thing) without losing anything. > From a provenance viewpoint, we require the thing we talk about in the provenance > to be identifiable. With URI-less g-snaps, this is going to become more challenging. You can assign IRIs to anything in RDF, including any concept you can possibly think of. You can assign IRIs to cars and people in RDF, even though RDF doesn't know anything about cars and people. Same for g-snaps. The question is whether the RDF data model should contain built-in constructs for certain things. Experience shows that built-in support for *some* of the g-* things would be a win. The argument is that support for g-boxes is sufficient, because that allows handling of g-snaps as immutable g-boxes. Best, Richard
Received on Sunday, 2 October 2011 12:29:36 UTC