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

Re: [ALL] agenda telecon 14 Dec

From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 18:29:15 -0500
Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <BA434ACA-2DC6-4B09-88E2-01CC49A147C0@3roundstones.com>
To: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
Hi all,

I had a lengthy conversation with TimBL about named graphs at the LEDP Workshop [1] last week.  Briefly, he feels that the semantics for named graphs should work like this:

- An RDF Graph is named via a URI.
- The URI denotes the RESTful Representation that is returned when the URI is resolved.

That is, the URI denotes the graph's contents, not the graph Resource itself.

How do Peter and Pat feel about that?

TimBL: Please let us know if I misrepresented your position.

Separately, Elsevier representatives Brad Allen and Alan Yagoda informed me that by "named graphs" they mean an RDF Graph that is referenced by a URI.  Resolution of that URI returns the graph contents (a g-text) via RESTful interaction.  That would seem to be in line with TimBL's preference.


On Dec 13, 2011, at 15:54, Guus Schreiber wrote:

> All,
> It is quiet on the mailing list. The main thing we seem to be in limbo about is the GRAPHS debate. I suggest we devote the meeting to this theme. I have included in the agenda some discussion topics that came up in recent telecons, plus the email of Andy on TriG examples.  I suggest we also have a meta-discussion on what our options are for getting consensus.
> The agenda is at:
>  http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.12.14
> Hope to speak to many of you tomorrow.
> Guus
Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2011 23:32:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:02 UTC