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: Dan Brickley <danbri2011@danbri.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:59:43 +0000
Cc: "Jeremy Carroll , public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
Message-Id: <1575D278-0055-4015-A2B1-5046FC5D6284@danbri.org>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Sending this from a phone whose email setup won't go to the list; feel free to fwd or just copy by reply into the archives.

On 20 Dec 2011, at 03:58, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:

> Sorry. I know it is *possible*. I wondered if anyone seriously contemplated an actual case where this might happen, other than to prove an academic point. Put another way, are there any 'natural' examples of something that people might reasonably do where this would happen.

Yes, the FOAF ns URI behaves this way.

Ask it for rdf/xml you get a pile of rdfs and owl-based triples.

Ask it for html (or fail to express a preference) and you get an xhtml human-oriented doc with a light sprinkling of rdfa-encoded rdfs and owl-based triples.

The intent is that later is a growing subset of former, but for now the two flavours are not mechanically coordinated.

You could put this down to incompetence, laziness or bad tools, but it is at least a real-world mess rather than a thought experiment.

Dan


> Pat
> 
> On Dec 19, 2011, at 7:46 PM, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 
>> On 12/19/2011 4:46 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>> On Dec 19, 2011, at 4:32 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 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.)
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> Yes.
>> 
>> e.g. put a foo.rdf and a foo.ttl in a directory on an appropriately configured apache web server
>> ensure the two files contain non-isomorphic graphs, one in RDF/XML and one in Turtle
>> 
>> retrieve using two different user agents (browser etc) one configured to prefer RDF/XML the other to prefer Turtle
>> 
>> 
>> Jeremy
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 18:19:04 GMT

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