W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > August 2008

Re: newbie question about sparql and 200

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:13:50 +0100
Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <562A04C2-98AF-45D6-9A6D-611AB94D0FA0@cyganiak.de>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>


On 18 Aug 2008, at 15:35, Dan Connolly wrote:
> cwm used to equate a document with
> a graph that it got from a document, but that turned out to be
> a pretty limiting constraint, so we introduced the log:semantics
> relationship between them.

This is interesting, Dan. Can you share some details? What issues did  
you bump into when you treated HTTP documents and graphs as equivalent?

(Not pushing any particular POV here, just curious about your  
experiences.)

Cheers,
Richard



>
>
>
> -- 
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
>
>
Received on Monday, 18 August 2008 15:14:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:03 GMT