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

Re: complete graphs

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2011 17:09:20 +0100
Message-ID: <4E873B30.7040003@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org


On 30/09/11 19:46, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-09-30 at 15:04 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>
>> On 30/09/11 13:59, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
>>> On 9/30/2011 8:44 AM, Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>>> From: Sandro Hawke<sandro@w3.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: complete graphs
>>>> Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 07:31:26 -0500
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> The restriction on the fourth column is that the fourth column is the
>>>>> web address of a place (a g-box) currently serving that triple.
>>>>> (That's the architecture I'm arguing for in this morning's post to
>>>>> public-rdf-prov [1].)
>>>>
>>>> You are going to build this into the formal meaning of RDF?
>>>> That's a non-starter for me.
>>>
>>> If I understand it correctly, I think it's a non-starter for me as well.
>>> This would prohibit non-HTTP URIs from being used to as the 4th element
>>> in a quad (i.e. as the identifier of a named graph)?
>>>
>>> Lee
>>
>> I understood Sandro's remark coming out of the discussion about
>> provenance on the web and so I took generalising to any URI scheme for
>> other situations as read.
>
> Right.   More formally, I'd say the fourth column is the identifier (IRI
> or BNode) of an Information Resource which MAY provide representations.
> If it does provide representations, it SHOULD provide an RDF
> representation (a g-text).   If you want to use a non-dereferenceable
> IRI scheme like uuid or tag, that's not good Linked Data but it's fine
> RDF.  Informally, the fourth column entry denotes a g-box, but I'm not
> convinced g-boxes should be formalized.

BNode?  Such a bNode is outside any graph so how does its semantics 
work? (I'm not saying it does not work - but I don't see how it would.)

RDF-MT : sec 1.5
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#unlabel

If we allow bNodes, at least it forces the decision on bNode label scope 
in a multigraph format to be "document", but that, IMHO, is the better 
choice anyway.

>      - Sandro
>
>> 	Andy
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The issue about completeness is that if I want to say, as in [1], that I
>>>>> agree or disagree with a statement (or otherwise build on it), it's
>>>>> important the readers see the whole statement (or know that they are
>>>>> seeing only a partial statement). It's even more important for me to
>>>>> know if I'm seeing the whole statement before I say if I agree.
>>>>
>>>> Please, let's try to be more precise. In particular, there is
>>>> rdf:Statement, so "statement" is something that has to be carefully
>>>> used.
>>>>
>>>>> -- Sandro
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-prov/2011Sep/0023
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Received on Saturday, 1 October 2011 16:09:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:45 GMT