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

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

From: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 11:27:17 +0100
To: "David Menendez" <zednenem@psualum.com>, "rdfig" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EBEPLGMHCDOJJJPCFHEFMEFPIJAA.danny666@virgilio.it>
Re: Contexts (spinoff from copy and wrap rdf statement

  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>  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.

  This makes sense, but then one could turn the other way and say the the
resource identified is the document, where the document might be a
representation of the graph. This would be in line with the identification
of documents that aren't RDF. I would guess that in practice the two
approaches would work out the same when in came down to app-building. How
this relates to the context issue I'm not sure - by referring to the graph
and/or document, are the statements therein being quoted or asserted?

  Cheers,
  Danny.
Received on Saturday, 23 November 2002 05:38:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:57 GMT