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

RDF-ISSUE-105 (datasets-webarch): Graphs, datasets, authoritative representations, and content negotiation [RDF Concepts]

From: RDF Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 15:11:10 +0000
Message-Id: <E1TW7Ha-0000TT-Ow@tibor.w3.org>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
RDF-ISSUE-105 (datasets-webarch): Graphs, datasets, authoritative representations, and content negotiation [RDF Concepts]

http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/105

Raised by: Richard Cyganiak
On product: RDF Concepts

According to AWWW, a URI owner may supply *authoritative representations* of the resource identified by that URI, and doing so is a benefit to the community [1].

Also, if a URI has multiple representations associated (via content negotiation), then fragment identifiers should be used consistently between these representations [2].

AWWW also states: “By design, a URI identifies one resource. Using the same URI to directly identify different resources produces a URI collision. Collision often imposes a cost in communication due to the effort required to resolve ambiguities.” [3] Given that RDF graphs and RDF datasets have disjoint definitions in RDF Concepts, this raises the question whether content negotiation can be used to negotiate between a graph-bearing format and a dataset-bearing format.

This raises a number of questions that this WG should be able to answer:


a) Is a Turtle file published at <xxx> containing the triple ":a :b :c" equivalent to this TriG file?

   { :a :b :c }

b) Is a Turtle file published at <xxx> containing the triple ":a :b :c" equivalent to this TriG file?

   <> { :a :b :c }

c) If a Turtle file containing the triple ":a :b :c" is published at <xxx>, and the publisher also wants to provide a TriG file via content negotiation (containing only a single graph), what would that equivalent TriG file be? Or would this be a URI collision?

d) Given that publishers should use fragment identifiers with consistent semantics between content-negotiated representations, what restrictions does this TriG file, published at <xxx>, place on the use of the yyy fragment in other representations of <xxx>? What about Turtle representations? What about HTML representations?

   <#yyy> { :a :b :c }

e) Does the following TriG file published at <xxx> establish a normative representation for <yyy>?

   <yyy> { :a :b :c }

f) Does the following TriG file published at <xxx> establish a normative representation for <xxx#yyy>?

   <#yyy> { :a :b :c }


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#representation-management
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#frag-coneg
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#URI-collision
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2012 15:11:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:52 GMT