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

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

From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 18:34:57 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+OuRR8BL64jf9ZOn5SqUa2DjiVcg+yU9N_vYB-G-tCecGLYnA@mail.gmail.com>
To: RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Le 7 nov. 2012 16:11, "RDF Working Group Issue Tracker" <
sysbot+tracker@w3.org> a écrit :
>
> 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.
>

My assumption

> 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 17:35:32 GMT

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