W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > December 2007

Re: Linked Data on qdos.com

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 22:04:54 +0000
Cc: semantic-web Interest Group <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-Id: <21E47C16-F80C-4CD4-BEBD-6B49DB72BF39@garlik.com>
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>

On 4 Dec 2007, at 19:00, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:

> Steve,
>
> First, congrats on getting QDOS out!

Thanks. It was a bit of a struggle.

> And surfacing the RDF!

That was less so.

> Well, your external interface could munge every URI which passes  
> though it, for example.
> Keeping the data the same.

I'd rather not put any hacks in the SPARQL interface, it would also be  
confusing. I think we've got a plan which means not changing any  
existing RDF URIs, just moving the HTML version of the profile.

>> Users get a rdf:type foaf:Person triples, celebs get rdf:type  
>> q:Celebrity, which should be a subClassOf foaf:Person, but I've not  
>> got round to adding that to the schema. The URI of the graph is the  
>> same as the URI of the person. That's slightly odd,
>
> It is broken.   I am not a graph! :-)
> To use the same URI for different things is not odd, it is  broken.

So... is it actually a problem to have the URI for the person and the  
graph be the same? I get that conflating the data about the person and  
the person is broken, but I'm not really sure what the significance of  
the graph's URI is.

My proposal was:

GRAPH ?person {
   ?person :name ?x
   ?person :extraData [
     dc:date ... ;
   ]
}

Which still conflates the graph and person, but not data and person.

- Steve
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 22:05:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:19 GMT