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

Re: Graph labels vs. graph names. (was: Re: complete graphs)

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 09:21:20 -0400
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1317820880.6904.9.camel@waldron>
On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 13:22 +0100, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> 
> Implementers and users of SPARQL seem to be generally perfectly ok
> with relying on private conventions. 

What sort of private conventions have you seen?    I've heard people
talk about:

  1. graph tag is the URL they once fetched the graph from
  2. graph tag is the URL on which they publish the graph
  3. graph tag is some sort of non-dereferenceable genid
  4. graph tag is primary subject URI of the graph (eg the person, for
FOAF)

It seems to me the variation here is an impediment to interoperability.
If my code talks to a new sparql server, and doesn't know which of these
conventions is being used, how can it do its job?   (Feel free to
replace "talks to a new sparql server" with "fetches a TriG document",
etc.)

I suggest we settle on a sort of merge of 2 and 3, which can in some
circumstances be stretched to include 1.    When we talked about this
some months ago, someone advocated 4, then agreed 2 was fine for their
purposes and probably better anyway.

      -- Sandro
Received on Wednesday, 5 October 2011 13:21:31 GMT

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