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

Re: Making progress on graphs

From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 10:36:56 +0200
Message-ID: <4FB36728.50202@emse.fr>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Le 16/05/2012 06:43, Pat Hayes a écrit :
>
> [skip]
>>
>> I'm not sure they are contradictory.   Antoine's proposal and mine
>> are both flexible enough to cover current practice.
>
> Wow. Really? They seeem to me to have almost nothing in common.

I agree they are quite different but they converge on some things, e.g., 
the default graph has the same meaning in both approaches.

>  You
> give names to graphs, Antoine's doesn't. Antoine's requires allowing
> IRIs to mean different things in different contexts, your's doesn't.

Id doesn't *require*, it just *allows*. So it makes possible for an 
implementation to define extensions that constrain the interpretations 
to denote the same thing, if required.

> Semantically they are completely different. I don't see how one can
> get true graph naming in Antoine's framework, nor how yours can
> provide any notion of context.

Getting true graph naming in my framework would be possible by adding 
just one additional condition on interpretation, but I deliberately 
avoided putting this constrain, to accomodate for the use cases when 
graph IRI denote primary topic, for instance.

 > [skip]

Best,
-- 
Antoine Zimmermann
ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol
École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne
158 cours Fauriel
42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2
France
Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03
Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66
http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2012 08:37:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:49 GMT