W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > April 2012

Re: blank nodes as graph labels

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:12:14 +0100
Message-ID: <4F9E495E.2010009@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 29/04/12 02:14, Pat Hayes wrote:
>
> On Apr 27, 2012, at 2:18 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>
...
>> Sure, after we understand the proposal, and people have a chance
>> to understand the pros and cons.   In particular: if you're
>> strictly followintg the Linked Data princples, it's not clear to me
>> how you refer to an RDF Graph in a dataset, unless you use a blank
>> node.  Do you want to tell people to use 303-see-other URIs for
>> that?  That seems like an awful lot (a prohibitive amount) of work
>> for publishers.
>
> Well, suppose we took the following line.
>
> 1. RDF graphs are a pure theoretical abstraction. The actual data
> structures or documents that encode them - graph containers - are
> what get named.
>
> 2. Graph containers are information resources which can be referred
> to by an HTML IRI without indirection.
>
> 3. Some graph containers are fixed, read-only, cannot be changed.
> These are used to hold graphs which are considered to be archival and
> not to be changed, so one can informally identify such a container
> with the graph it contains. Call them rigid containers.
>
> 4. a named graph is actually a named rigid graph container.

This web-centric view is what (to my recollection) DanC was arguing for
in DAWG.

("web-centric" because it emphasised documents and places to get them)

+1

	Andy
Received on Monday, 30 April 2012 08:12:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:04 UTC