Fwd: [pedantic-web] Re: The OWL Ontology URI

I always have a hard time remembering whether an RDF graph is an
information resource or not, but the email from Ian Davis cited by the
following message gives evidence that it normatively isn't...  Now I
wonder whether the TAG and/or TimBL reviewed rdf-sparql-query and
concurred with this determination; I don't remember any review, and if
there was none this borders on being a squatting issue for the term
"information resource". Seems draconian to me to require separate URIs
for the document and the graph and weird to say that g in "graph { g }
..." is not a graph. But what do I know.

Jonathan

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>
Date: Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:48 AM
Subject: Re: [pedantic-web] Re: The OWL Ontology URI
To: pedantic-web@googlegroups.com

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote:

> To put it another way: An N-Triples serialization of an RDF graph is a
> perfect representation of that graph. The fact that you can round-trip
> between them makes this clear. If it can have a representation, then it's an
> information resource and therefore it can be published as a web document
> (with 200 status code that returns the representation).

Well I argued this way 2 years ago, but it's not the consensus and
it's at odds with e.g. cwm. See messages around
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Jan/0071.html

>> Most of the schemas in your second group were authored by me, or
>> by people advised by me, but I now believe they are wrong.
>
> Good to hear that. Any chance of getting these schemas changed, in the
> mid-term?

I'll work on it.

Ian

Received on Monday, 10 May 2010 15:53:25 UTC