Jos De_Roo writes: > Using <uri-of-some-set-of-triples> as an example > was misleading. We normally identify the *document* > on which the rdf formula is written and so it would > have been better when I would have used > <uri-of-some-rdf-document> and then I still think > that we *call* some-set-of-triples > <uri-of-some-rdf-document>!log:semantics Does <uri-of-some-rdf-document> indicate a resource available through the web? If so, is the assumption that log:semantics may relate the same resource to different graphs over time? For example, Alice might post a FOAF profile at <http://example.com/alice>, leading to this data: <http://example.com/alice> log:semantics { _:a rdf:type foaf:Person. _:a foaf:mbox <mailto:alice@example.com>. _:a foaf:name "Ailce". }. The next day, she fixes the typo, and we get: <http://example.com/alice> log:semantics { _:a rdf:type foaf:Person. _:a foaf:mbox <mailto:alice@example.com>. _:a foaf:name "Alice". }. This means we can't treat <http://example.com/alice>!log:semantics as an identifier of a specific graph, because it indicates different graphs at different times. -- David Menendez <zednenem@psualum.com> <http://www.eyrie.org/~zednenem/>Received on Monday, 22 December 2003 17:21:06 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:03 GMT