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

Re: Web Semantics for Datasets

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 10:19:38 -0400
To: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: danbri@danbri.org, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <1317997178.12194.113.camel@waldron>
On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 09:12 -0400, Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
wrote:
> For all HTTP clients?  Over all time?  For all
> hardware/software/protocol/internet errors?  
> 
> Without knowing the boundaries of the "every" the proposal is
> incomplete.

The goal here is to get systems to behave in a predictable (and useful)
way so that other systems can build on them.  And the mechanism I'm
trying to use for that is to define conformance to standards.  So, I'm
thinking in terms of idealized behavior.    Certainly, it's out of scope
to be worrying about whether, eg, client software has been subverted.

Can you think of a way to frame this better?   Mine was:

        For the graph naming to hold, every successful dereference of N
        yielding an RDF graph must yield G. 

So, I'm not exactly defining all those terms, but I expect they are
pretty clear.     Yes, for all HTTP clients.   Over all time -- that's a
different kind of question, about the temporal range of the assertion.
For all errors -- no, if there's an error it's not a "successful
dereference".

    -- Sandro

> peter
> 
> 
> 
> From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Web Semantics for Datasets
> Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 07:05:11 -0500
> 
> > On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 06:27 -0400, Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
> > wrote:
> >> From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
> >> Subject: Re: Web Semantics for Datasets
> >> Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 04:53:52 -0500
> >> 
> >> [...]
> >> 
> >> > I suspect a bigger problem is the amount of personalised,
> >> > cookie-mediated or session-based content out there, 
> >> 
> >> This is, I think, one of the problems with proposals that push a "state
> >> of the web" aspect into the RDF Semantics.
> > 
> > Yes, many URLs behave like this, but my intention was to write the
> > proposal such that these URLs simply cannot be used as the fourth column
> > of true datasets:
> > 
> >         Consider a "graph naming" to be the association of a
> >         graph name N with a graph G.  For the graph naming to hold,
> >         every
> >         successful dereference of N yielding an RDF graph must yield G. 
> > 
> > I think follows that a graph naming cannot hold if N is one of these
> > cookie-based URLs.
> > 
> > There is some danger that if you use someone else's URLs in the fourth
> > column in your dataset, you'll be unknowingly wrong, as they used
> > cookies but you didn't know about it.  But I think any time you use
> > someone else's URLs like this, there is some exposure.   In some cases
> > it can be handled by not caring if you're wrong, I guess.
> > 
> >    -- Sandro
> > 
> >> [...]
> >> 
> >> > Dan
> >> 
> >> peter
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> > 
> 
Received on Friday, 7 October 2011 14:19:53 GMT

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