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

Re: Web Semantics for Datasets

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 16:01:59 +0100
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2EAA17CE-9766-4F91-9978-742B9F408677@cyganiak.de>
To: Ian Davis <Ian.Davis@talis.com>
On 7 Oct 2011, at 15:04, Ian Davis 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?

Quoting AWWW:

URI ownership is a relation between a URI and a social entity, such as a person, organization, or specification. URI ownership gives the relevant social entity certain rights, including:

	• to pass on ownership of some or all owned URIs to another owner—delegation; and
	• to associate a resource with an owned URI—URI allocation.

… etc etc


I find that account reasonable for <u,G>. As I said, I don't think this should be normative in the definition.

> 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.

Personally, I think doing that is not a very good idea, especially if you expose this graph name to the public.

I'm ok with stating that informatively in the specs.

I think it's important that things like inference over the individual graphs still work even when people do it.

I strongly believe that we shouldn't normatively forbid it, as that would outlaw deployed practice and it would disagree with SPARQL.

> 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?

Yes, you should rename the graph, as a matter of good practice. But even if you don't, SPARQL and inference and whatever should still work and you shouldn't be in violation of any normative spec.

Received on Friday, 7 October 2011 15:02:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:01 UTC