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

Danny Ayers wrote:

>  
>
>     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?  
>
I agree with danny here, and I think the WG would also agree with danny. 
 <http://somewhere/me.rdf> identifies a document.  Which is why we need 
#ThisGraph.  There is currently nothing to refer to that *abstract* 
thing.  The document is a tangeable physical thing that contains token 
strings.  The graph is an abstract thing that contains triples.  The 
parser in an application will turn the token strings from the document 
into triples in the application's database.  If we are to talk about 
this distinction in an interoperable manner, then we need a *standard* 
way to refer to the document as opposed to the graph.  

Does begging work with the WG ?

Seth Russell