W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 2002

Re: Contexts (spinoff from copy and wrap rdf statements)

From: David Menendez <zednenem@psualum.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 00:54:09 -0500
Message-Id: <a05111b18ba04c060fc8f@[]>
To: rdfig <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
At 9:57 AM -0800 2002-11-22, Seth Russell wrote:
>Danny Ayers wrote:
>>>>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

Similar. I was actually thinking more along the lines of "some RDF in 
a local file" or "a graph generated on the fly and sent over the 
network." Neither of those have convenient URIs.

>I think TimBl would say that 
> <http://somewhere/me.rdf><http://somewhere/me.rdf>  identifies a 
>document.  But a document is not an abstract graph.  So if that URI 
>identifies a document, what URI identifies the actual graph ?

My inclination is to say that the resource identified by 
<http://somewhere/me.rdf> is an abstract graph, and the document is a 
representation of the resource. I vaguely recall there being an 
argument against that view, but I can't think of what it would be.

Dave Menendez - zednenem@psualum.com - http://www.eyrie.org/~zednenem/
Received on Saturday, 23 November 2002 00:53:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:43 UTC