W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > April 2011

Re: [Graphs] Proposal for Named Graph Semantics

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 23:29:40 +0100
Message-ID: <4D9F8C54.8060001@webr3.org>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
CC: antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr, Alex Hall <alexhall@revelytix.com>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> On 8 Apr 2011, at 16:32, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
>> This is what Pat called "poking a g-box". Poking a g-box is sometimes HTTP dereferencing the IRI that identifies the g-box. Sometimes, it's just returning what's in the curly brackets in a TriG document. Sometimes it's whatever triples attached to a certain IRI in a Quad file. Sometimes, it's getting the graph represented by a Jena Model in memory.
> +1.
> That's why I'm in favour of defining *only* an abstract syntax that pairs IRI and g-snap, without constraining what the relationship is.
> If I give you a TriG document, or tell you about my SPARQL store, I would probably say: “Look, I poked a bunch of g-boxes (via their IRIs), and here's the g-snaps I got from each.”

Agree, operative word there being "I", in different use cases the poking 
produces different results for different people, often at the same 
instant (auth* etc).

Nice to keep it as loosely defined as possible, it won't impede any 
functionality from any use case or spec, now or in the future, that way.


Received on Friday, 8 April 2011 22:30:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:58 UTC