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

Re: A radical proposal.

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:46:39 -0400
Message-ID: <50324DCF.7050006@openlinksw.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 8/20/12 10:39 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> >
>>> >>Under this proposal (which, to emphasise, is purely one of terminology,
>>> >>not actual content) we would say that an RDF/XML or an Ntriples
>>> >>document actually*is*  an RDF graph.
>> >
>> >Well, to be clear, it is a representation of an RDF graph, isn't it?
> Maybe we are at another terminology cliff here. The document is the thing I edit and store, and you http-poke, and you get back a REST-representation of it in the form of a byte stream. You don't actually get my document. My document is the resource. Just like HTML, where I edit an HTML document and store it on a server and call it a web page, and your HTTP GET gets a copy of it to take away as its representation. Right?
>
> Pat
>
Maybe this helps, if we just add the fact the HTTP (an other network 
oriented protocols) extend scope of a file to the network.

" Files are uniformly regarded as consisting of a stream of bytes; the 
system makes no assumptions as to their contents. Thus the structure of 
files is controlled solely by the programs which read and write them. A 
file of ASCII text, for example, consists simply of a stream of 
characters delimited by the new-line characters. The notion of physical 
record is fairly well submerged." -- Dennis Ritchie

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen







Received on Monday, 20 August 2012 14:45:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:06 UTC