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: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 14:05:46 -0500
Message-Id: <a05111b1fba0820269576@[10.0.1.2]>
To: seth@robustai.net
Cc: rdfig <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

At 10:04 AM -0800 2002-11-25, Seth Russell wrote:
>David Menendez wrote:

>>One possibility:
>>
>>{ :Stassi a :Cat; :belongsTo :Me.  }
>>   dc:source <http://example.org/c.rdf>;
>>   dcq:issued "2002-11-22t10:00z";
>>   eg:encodedAs xml"<rdf:RDF ... </rdf:RDF>";
>>   eg:signature "...".
>>
>>Alternately, you could have an explicit node for B.
>>
>>{ :Stassi a :Cat; :belongsTo :Me. } eg:derivedFrom [
>>   a eg:Representation;
>>   dc:source <http://example.org/c.rdf>;
>>   dcq:issued "2002-11-22t10:00z";
>>   dc:format "application/rdf+xml";
>>   dc:language "en";
>>   eg:encodedAsText "<rdf:RDF ... </rdf:RDF>";
>>].
>
>I'm ok with both of thoses; but we don't end up with a URI for the graph.

That's an artifact of N3. It shouldn't matter whether a resource 
representing a graph is identified by a URIref or not. N3 just 
doesn't have a convenient way to say what that identifier is.

So, there's no reason why you couldn't do something like:

<#Graph1234> dc:source <http://example.org/c.rdf>.

Where <#Graph1234> indicates a resource corresponding to a graph of 
statements derived from <http://example.org/c.rdf>.
-- 
Dave Menendez - zednenem@psualum.com - http://www.eyrie.org/~zednenem/
Received on Monday, 25 November 2002 14:04:30 GMT

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