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

Re: [GRAPH] graph deadlock?

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 18:06:38 +0000
Message-ID: <4EF371AE.4070803@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org

On 21/12/11 20:47, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 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.

This isn't to be picky as such but to reflect the matter of being 
precise and consistent. At RDF F2F2, we resolved:

In our documents, we'll use the terms "RDF Graph" for g-snap, "Graph 
Container" for g-box, and "Graph Serialization" for g-text

The resource is the "Graph Container" that can be poked with GET to 
return the current state which is an RDF graph.

The representation is the "Graph Serialization" that encodes that RDF graph.

In the above text, "the graph is the resource" mixes things up a little. 
  The resource is a Graph Container that can produce an RDF Graph (a 
value; the container's state) on demand.

I read
 >>> I am advocating that the IRI denotes the graph
 >>> I am advocating that the IRI denotes the RDF graph

The "denotes a graph container" is a common, but different, usage pattern.

Received on Thursday, 22 December 2011 18:07:07 UTC

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