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

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

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 11:15:58 -0800
Message-ID: <3DE1256E.1010809@robustai.net>
To: David Menendez <zednenem@psualum.com>
CC: rdfig <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
David Menendez wrote:

> At 7:45 AM -0800 2002-11-23, Seth Russell wrote:
>> 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.  
> I still prefer to think of the resource being the information, and any 
> particular document being a representation of the resource. For 
> example, say <http://example.org/privacy> is the URI of a company's 
> privacy policy, which might be available in multiple languages and 
> formats and might vary over time. The actual bytes which you would 
> receive (the representation) will vary, but the resource is constant.
> Similarly, I would think of <http://somewhere/me.rdf> as being a 
> dataset which can be expressed in terms of triples. Any RDF documents 
> you get as a result of dereferencing the resource would be 
> representations.
> If you needed to refer to an actual RDF/XML document that you 
> downloaded at a specific time, you could use something like:
> _:a rdf:type eg:Representation;
>     dc:source <http://somewhere/me.rdf>;
>     dc:format "application/rdf+xml";
>     dc:language "en";
>     dcq:issued "2002-11-23t10:30:00z".

I suppose that would work as long as we agree that the uri [of the 
document] identifies the graph and not the document.  Thing is we have 
text in the Concepts document [1]  that conflicts with your interpertation:
       "So when someurl#frag is used in an RDF document,
        someurl is presumed to designate an RDF document."  
The whole point is agreeing on a standard, and bucking the WG is not 
going to help us there.   I dont think using the frag #ThisGraph 
conflicts with any WG text.  It would be nice if the WG saw the need to 
refer to the abstract graph with a URI and gave us a standard syntax to 
do that.  But don't hold your breath.

Seth Ruissell
Received on Sunday, 24 November 2002 14:16:31 UTC

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