- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 22:18:12 +0000
- To: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjekje@ifi.uio.no>
- CC: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, SW-forum Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote: > On Friday 18. March 2011 22:45:33 David Booth wrote: >> 2. Because this kind of ambiguity of reference is inescapable (though >> the example is an extreme case), so we have no choice but to learn to >> deal with it. > > So, what you're saying is "relax, whether it is an RDF Graph or an RDF > Document is not important to specify, ambiguity is inescapable and can be > useful"? > > I can see that point, and I appreciate the arguments that you make. However, > it still seems that accepting this means accepting what webarch calls a URI > Collision. > > Also, I very much appreciate Sandro's clean sheet terminology. This new > terminology is unfortunately not currently available as normative reference, > and for such a simple protocol as we currently discuss, I feel that we should > be able to specify it clearly enough for all practical purposes without. > > There are two points that I feel has not been answered yet, and that's whether > the apparent conflict that I think I see between the usages of RDF Document and > RDF Graph are real, is the ambiguity real? And if so would a URI collision be > acceptable? well, it depends if you mean g-text, g-snap or g-box when you say "RDF Graph" and "RDF Document" If you mean: RDF Graph = g-text, *and* RDF Document = g-box, *and* the RDF Document never changes, that is to say the g-text is the one and only representation of the g-box, then there is no URI collision. In all other cases there is an ambiguity and a URI collision. I won't speak to whether that's acceptable or not. Best, Nathan
Received on Sunday, 20 March 2011 22:18:55 UTC