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

Re: Web Semantics for Datasets

From: Ian Davis <ian.davis@talis.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 15:04:32 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAiX05HiadcVNayAWWOWW+WQsjMvHGmG517iFZmcq-_qONi2=A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>wrote:

>
>
> The relationship between <u,G> in a named graph shouldn't be “dereferencing
> u yields G”. It should be “owner of u gets to say what's in G”, which
> already *is* the case per AWWW, so we don't actually need to say anything
> about that when specifying <u,G>.
>
>
So there _is_ a relationship between u and G in your opinion? It's quite a
strong one too because it would preclude scenarios that have been discussed
in this WG before such as using http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person as the name
for a graph containing data about people.

What would it mean if I took a dump of dbpedia and started modifying the
contents of the http://dbpedia.org named graph? Should I really assign a new
name that is under my control?

Ian

-- 
Ian Davis, Chief Technology Officer, Talis Group Ltd.
http://www.talis.com/ | Registered in England and Wales as 5382297
Received on Friday, 7 October 2011 14:05:10 GMT

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