On mån, 2007-12-17 at 17:34 -0800, Pat Hayes wrote: > >.... 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. > > An RDF graph is *defined* to be a set of triples in the normative RDF > spec, so your belief has some support :-) > > > 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. > > Hmm. You can transmit some textual encoding of the triples in a > lossless way, yes. But you can't actually transmit the triples > themselves. Well, you're not supposed to send the resource itself, wasn't that the point? You're supposed to transmit the "essential characteristics" in a MIME message. If RDF/XML fails to be a representation in that sense of an RDF graph, I must say I'm completely lost. Let's say you set up a resource http://example.org/myrdf and conneg between application/rdf+xml and text/n3 (or whatever the MIME type is supposed to be) - what is the resource? How can you ever serve RDF/XML with 200 Ok? Can we please have some clarification here? /Mikael > Compare sending a numeral in some text, using some > numerical convention, vs. sending an actual number. Maybe if > 'lossless' is the sole criterion, then numbers are IRs also, since > the literal "123"^^xsd:number seems to be an encoding of the number > one hundred and twenty three with perfect fidelity. But I'm betting > that this isn't what was originally intended by the IR idea. > > Pat > > -- <mikael@nilsson.name> Plus ça change, plus c'est la même choseReceived on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 08:14:26 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:51 GMT