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

Re: [GRAPH] graph deadlock?

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:34:28 -0500
Message-ID: <4EF234C4.6020900@thefigtrees.net>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
CC: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 12/21/2011 12:52 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 12/21/11 12:23 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>
>> If the 4th slot IRI (label) is actually denoting the graph container,
>> and the triples have the IRI in the object slot, that IRI must denote
>> the graph container.

> Yes. Which goes back to comments made by Lee and I about how our
> respective products work. Basically, make statements about the named
> graph using its IRI if that sort of granularity is required for a given
> solution.

Yup, just to agree with Kingsley. I appreciate the efforts of everyone 
who is attempting to solve this problem by talking about named graphs as 
labelled graphs or pairs of URI + graph, but we do more than that: we DO 
use the URI to denote the graph in some contexts and something else (a 
person, a protein, whatever) in other contexts. We know this isn't 
semantically kosher, and we can imagine situations in which it could 
actually lead to confusion: but in practice, it's been a very useful way 
to build applications and has never led to any confusion: the context in 
which the URI is used (as Kingsley says, this often means the predicates 
that it's used with) makes it quite clear whether we're talking about a 
graph or about a jiggerwidget.

Now, I'm not asking that the rest of the world do this; I'm not asking 
that RDF semantics be changed to make this use kosher. I'm OK with it 
not being valid and I'll work to identify any situations that will break 
because it's not valid. I'm just sharing what our experiences have been 
in in practice.

Lee
Received on Wednesday, 21 December 2011 19:35:02 GMT

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