W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > May 2010

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

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 12:54:15 -0500
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Cc: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1273600455.3925.1517.camel@pav>
On Mon, 2010-05-10 at 11:52 -0400, 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...

No, the spec is just careful not to commit to saying
that graphs _are_ information resources; it doesn't
say that they are not.

>   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.

What the spec is saying is that when you write
  graph <abc> { ... }

the graph that is referred to is not the referent of <abc>,
but something closely related:

"The FROM NAMED syntax suggests that the IRI identifies the
corresponding graph, but the relationship between an IRI and a graph in
an RDF dataset is indirect. The IRI identifies a resource, and the
resource is represented by a graph (or, more precisely: by a document
that serializes a graph)."
 -- http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#namedGraphs

it's something like using email addresses to point out people; the
mailto:x@y URI doesn't identify the person, but rather a mailbox
owned by the person.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2010 17:54:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:21:08 UTC