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

Re: [ALL] agenda telecon 14 Dec

From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:57:50 +0100
Message-ID: <4EE8C77E.1010403@emse.fr>
To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
CC: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
The idea of having an agreed formal semantics is to be sure that no 
matter where and when the graph is, what you can conclude from it is the 
same.
With a semantics based on URI resolution, it becomes dependent on who, 
where and when a user agent is when trying to make conclusions. You go 
offline and the graph changes its meaning. You're behind a proxy or 
haven't enough rights and you change the meaning...

We can propose this as a best practice (the graph URI /SHOULD/  be used 
to denote the RESTful etc...) but hardly a rule in the formal semantics.

Le 14/12/2011 00:29, David Wood a écrit :
> 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.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>
>
> 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
>>
>
>
>

-- 
Antoine Zimmermann
ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol
École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne
158 cours Fauriel
42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2
France
Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03
Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66
http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 15:58:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:46 GMT