- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 21:06:02 +0100
- To: "'RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Thursday, December 05, 2013 11:54 AM, Guus Schreiber wrote: > In the telecon yesterday there were some flames about the graph > metadata examples in the Primer. > [...] > > [[ > We can write down triples that include a graph name, for example: > > <http://example.org/bob> <is published by> <http://example.org>. > <http://example.org/bob> <has license> > <http://creativecommons.org/licenses /by/3.0/>. > > These two triples could be interpreted as license and provenance > information of the graph http://example.org/bob. What if we just drop this part. There are still two named graphs in the example but we don't make any statements about the graphs (because we can't in an interoperable way). The > NOTE > RDF does not define the way in which the graph name and the graph are > related. It is therefore up to application developers to decide how to > interpret such triples. > ]] Could stay in the document or be augmented by, e.g., saying that " http://example.org/bob" in the triple <http://example.org/bob> <is published by> <http://example.org> . does not refer to the graph without out-of-band knowledge indicating it. The examples in section 5.2 (and the figure there) and appendix C would of course have to be updated accordingly. IMO that would be the most uncontroversial way forward. Thoughts? -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2013 20:06:39 UTC