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

Re: Graph-State Resources (was Re: graphs and documents Re: [ALL] agenda telecon 14 Dec)

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 18:46:10 -0600
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <FCC6BB3D-99A1-4B58-A90D-033386B578E0@ihmc.us>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>

On Dec 19, 2011, at 4:32 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:

> On 15 Dec 2011, at 18:35, Dan Brickley wrote:
>> Does log:semantics act as an owl:FunctionalProperty?  i.e. within a
>> single graph, can we expect at most one true property value for it?
> I don't think so. log:semantics depends on retrieval of a representation, and the result of that action may be different for different clients with different configuration, different network location, or different access credentials.
> Content negotiation by language is a nice example where the same client in the same network location and same access credentials would receive different representations, and hence different log:semantics, based on user configuration.

? IS it obvious that it would be different? The object of log:semantics is the RDF graph that the retrieved representation parses into, not the representation itself. Are there cases where content negotiation would give a different RDF graph from the same resource? (Genuine question, not rhetoric.)


>> People seem to talk as if it is functional, but I can't see that
>> working out in practice.
> Me neither.
> Best,
> Richard

IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2011 00:46:49 UTC

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