W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Problem with auto-generated fragment IDs for graph names

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 09:35:50 -0500
Message-ID: <511CF646.2090505@openlinksw.com>
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
On 2/14/13 9:02 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> In the old days, the party line was that one uses reification for signing:
>    _:statement1 dc:author "Bob" ;
>                 rdf:subject :TheMoon ;
> 	       rdf:predicate :madeOf ;
> 	       rdf:object :greenCheese .
I don't see a problem with the excerpt above. Like most things about 
RDF, the lost visibility induced by RDF/XML made many key concepts near 
impossible to explain and demonstrate. I remain confident that statement 
reification feature of RDF, as it currently exists, will soon become 
very useful and appreciated. With RDF you have to think like a wine 
maker, in due course things simply get better for the customer.

A world devoid of SPARQL dominated by RDF/XML (rather than Turtle) is 
not one that many were unable to comprehend or appreciate. Times are 
changing. We sign statements in the real-world using hand written 
signatures. We can also do so in the Web realm via RDF, in its current 
form i.e., I would just add a triple to capture an RSA signature blob 
(using a data: or http: scheme URI) .


-- 

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 Thursday, 14 February 2013 14:36:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:54 GMT