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

Re: contexts, graph names and so on

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:51:42 +0000
Message-ID: <4EBBE4FE.3040905@epimorphics.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
CC: RDF-WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>

On 09/11/11 18:38, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> Andy,
> On 3 Nov 2011, at 16:23, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>> Indirection:
>> :g { :s :p :o }
>> :g --->  X --->  graph
>> :g is related to something and something is related to the graph
>> X can be the graph name, and the X--->graph is "denotes"
>> ":g --->  X" is the step from 4th slot to graph name. Call this g2x; it's a property; it is different for different RDF datasets.
> So you're saying:
>     :g --???-->  X --denotes-->  graph
> and there should be some way of stating what relation --???-->  is for a particular dataset.
> Wouldn't it make more sense to say:
>     :g --denotes-->  X --???-->  graph
> because :g is an IRI and as such probably is supposed to denote something already. Then some obvious choices for --???-->  would be sameAs, hasRepresentation, and hasPrimaryTopic.
> Best,
> Richard

It makes more sense (to me at least) to fix the second part as naming 
the the graph value.

X names the graph (graph value).

owl:sameAs could be used in  "X --???-->  graph".

The common use case of using the grapgh container location as the 4th 
slot is "hasRepresentation" would be in the ":g ---> X" step.

:location :hasRepresentation value .

":g --denotes--> X" happens just by using :g.

I have an action to write some short use cases but these previosu 
messages do fit the model as I think of it:

Subject: The "Rolling Snapshots" Pattern and Vocabulary

Subject: Time-varying g-boxes : a dataset pattern

Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 14:52:18 UTC

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