W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > February 2004

Re: Graph naming?

From: Alberto Reggiori <alberto@asemantics.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:59:43 +0100
Message-Id: <A02AEB8B-67AB-11D8-8ADC-0003939CA324@asemantics.com>
Cc: rdf-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>

On Feb 25, 2004, at 12:04 PM, Dave Beckett wrote:
> The key issue is as long as you know what kind of context is being  
> used;
> we identified three types at a SWADE workshop[1]:
>   1) source URI (where the triples came from, usually always a URI)
>   2) subgraph/submodel identifier
>   3) an internal/statement identifier
> You have to be clear what you are defining for context.

indeed - that workshop was definitively useful and it should be a good  
starting point for any future work about that - and I guess the best  
way it would be to start surveying some good/sane use-cases or  
scenarios of usage of contexts, provenance, graph naming, dark-triples,  
quads, sources, spaces, domains (how many terms have we got for the  
"same" thing? :) and how to query/treat those in our applications - I  
set up some query use-case for "naming" sometime ago  
cases.html#11 - feel free to add you own tool-specific examples to  

Another way it would be to approach this problem bottom up, and  
designing/inventing some very simple RDF vocabulary to let people to  
express such things in their RDF/XML today - but I understand this is  
not the proper way - actually the other way round :)

> I'd say that adding anything to rdf:RDF will break parsers; they are  
> entitled
> to assume that it can have no attributes other than those specified in  
> the syntax.

yes - I would not like too much extending existing RDF/XML syntax in  
that direction i.e. making it not backward compatible

> rdf:RDF could have been used to label graphs and sub graphs but again,
> the WG left this alone.  The question of "what does naming a
> graph/subgraph mean?" seems the first and most important thing to  
> answer.

yep fully agree - that is the question we need to answer - even though  
we have got applications to write today which need such useful  
extensions ;)

definitively something to start to think and talk about in the upcoming  



> [1]  
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/dev_workshop_report_4/#sec- 
> context
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2004 10:59:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:49 UTC