- From: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>
- Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 17:28:07 +0100
- To: <seth@robustai.net>, "David Menendez" <zednenem@psualum.com>
- Cc: "rdfig" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
>> At 1:04 PM -0800 2002-11-21, Seth Russell wrote: >> >>> I totally agree. I really don't understand why we can't just agree to >>> refer to the set of triples (the model) encoded by the document at >>> <urlA> as <urlA#ThisGraph>. >> >> >> What about graphs that are not encoded by documents with URIs? > >Ok, take for example the graph of all RSS items that contain the key >word phrases "Star Trek", "uiversal translator", and "GroupFormingHere". > Granted there is no particular document that encodes that graph at >2:15 AM on 11/22/2002. But it is still our intention to find this graph >and give it a URI so we can talk about it, right? Is that your >question? Hmm - if I want to use my foaf data elsewhere I can presently refer to it using the URL of a file that contains it. This is the de facto URI for the graph containing that information. But following the suggestion above, wouldn't I have to use another URI: http://somewhere/me.rdf#http://somewhere/me.rdf Seems a little strange somehow... (btw, you can add another item to your graph: http://ideagraph.net/rss/Blogfeed.pl#http://ideagraph.net/rss/Blogfeed.pl ) Cheers, Danny.
Received on Friday, 22 November 2002 11:40:33 UTC