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

Let me give an intuitive case in support of the Nays here. An RDF  
graph is a set, which is not the same as a document, for sure. The  
*same* graph can be encoded in a variety of different syntactic forms.  
Consider two documents, one in RDF/XML, the other in NTriples,  
describing the same graph. If we identify the document with the graph  
it describes, then these have to be the same. But they aren't the  
same. So even if a graph is an information resource (and I agree that  
one can make out a case for that position), it certainly isn't the  
same information resource as any document (In RDF/XML or NTriples or  
any other notation) that represents it syntactically. So, one ought to  
use redirection to refer to it, according to http-range-14. So,  
whether its an information resource or not is kind of moot, since even  
if it is, it can't be directly identified by a URI which returns a 200  
code.

Pat

On May 10, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Jonathan Rees wrote:

> 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
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes

Received on Monday, 10 May 2010 20:26:57 UTC