- 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>
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