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

Re: [GRAPH] graph deadlock?

From: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:47:06 -0800
Message-ID: <4EF245CA.9020909@topquadrant.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 12/21/2011 8:47 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> Jeremy:
>> I am advocating that the IRI denotes the graph
>>
>>
> Why not the Graph Container?

In my mental model of the world, we take a URL like:
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns

when you do a get, and ask for content type application/rdf+xml

you get an RDF/XML document that encodes a graph.

To me, the RDF/XML document is the representation, and the graph is the 
resource.
Thus, at least on my reading of the usual usage of RDF, there is some 
preference for semantic interpretations in which
I(<http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns>) is that graph

If I wanted to denote the RDF/XML document separately, I might in this 
case, where the web server provides distinct URLs, use
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns.rdf
for the RDF/XML document, and not the graph. I am not sure what to make 
of the intent behind the 302 redirect.
At some level, I would expect that it is really for the owner of the 
website to be clear in their mind as to what resource each URL they 
serve actually is. I probably should read Web Architecture ..... isn't 
there some stuff about an information resource. I think for me then an 
RDF graph is an information resource, and a graph container, such as an 
RDF/XML document is a distinct information resource, but in practice web 
sites might blur the distinction

Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 21 December 2011 20:47:56 GMT

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