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

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

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 16:23:49 +0000
Message-ID: <51210415.1050004@epimorphics.com>
To: public-linked-json@w3.org, RDF-WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>


On 17/02/13 15:56, Manu Sporny wrote:
> On 02/17/2013 08:15 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> I do not think so. I actually do not have a strong opinion on the
>> bnodes-as-graph-labels issue. What I am uneasy about is that, *if we
>>   use them*, they would represent a different semantics as IRI-s which
>>   is my understanding of Pat's emails. That is all.
>
> Can we fix this based on what the RDF WG suggested that we do for
> JSON-LD? By creating a special form of fragment identifier to deal with
> the situation? I realize that IRIs-as-graph-names can currently be used
> for both denoting a graph and naming-but-not-denoting a graph use cases.
> What if we do something like this:
>
> In general, graph names denote the graph (both IRIs and Blank Node
> Identifiers).
>
> If a developer wants to use an IRI that names-but-does-not-denote the
> graph, they can append a "special" fragment identifier (that is
> specifically called out in one of the RDF specs) to the IRI. Something like:
>
> http://example.com/graphs/1#_:unnamed OR
> http://example.com/graphs/1#_graphname:123
>
> We might even want to create a new class of non-IRI value to
> name-but-not-denote a graph:
>
> _connotation:27392
>
> It seems to me that the case where we name-but-do-not-denote a graph is
> more rare than the case where we want to denote a graph by its name. Can
> somebody point to the discussion where we decided that we can't do this?
> Or rather, who in this group would strongly oppose this general approach?
>
> Like some of the others on this list, I'd also not prefer that graph
> names do anything other than denoting the graph. I don't want to revisit
> the issue to debate it to death again. A simple preference straw-poll at
> the next telecon might show us that this idea is/isn't worth pursuing.
>
> -- manu

The most common usage in real use that I have seen is using the URL of 
the location where graph was read from.  For many applications the 
g-box/g-snap distinction is simply not of interest.

	Andy
Received on Sunday, 17 February 2013 16:24:22 GMT

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