- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:34:27 -0500
- To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@miscoranda.com>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Sean Palmer writes: > Ian Davis asked Tim on IRC whether an RDF Graph is an > information resource [1], and Tim replied "no". For what it's worth, I think Tim and I agree about 85% on which things are IRs, but on this one I think we disagree. Tim has suggested from time to time that he thinks of IRs as more or less the same as documents. I don't think of RDF Graphs as documents. For me, documents have a beginning a middle and an end, and RDF graphs don't. Unlike Tim (or at least unlike what I understand to be Tim's position), I think an RDF graph is not a document, but is an IR. I believe that an RDF graph is pretty completely characterized by a set of triples. I believe I can, with suitable agreements between sender and receiver about the encoding (as we require for all information transmission), I can transmit those triples with complete fidelity, and a receiver could reproduce them with no loss at all. Q.E.D. Of course, this begs the question as to whether a focus on documents or IRs (I.e. as I define them) will be more helpful as the basis for Web architecture moving forward. Insofar as we're trying to indicate with a 200 that "this representation is of the resource identified" (as opposed to being a representation of a resource that's about or related to the resource identified), I see no conflict in saying that an RDF graph is an IR, that such IRs can be idenfitied with URIs, and that a 200 is a suitable status code to use when, for example, returning the N3 or RDF/XML that encodes the graph so identified. What am I missing? Noah -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 17 December 2007 23:34:06 UTC