W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-hydra@w3.org > November 2015

Re: the necessity of describing responses in-band

From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 17:08:48 +0100
Cc: Hydra <public-hydra@w3.org>
Message-Id: <67179BAC-AD58-411C-BCCD-364840FC3493@ugent.be>
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Resurrecting and old thread here, but:

>> Yes and that's quite horrible.
>> anybody knows why the graph IRI is only a syntactical construct?
> It is the graph's name but it's semantics are not clear. It is undefined
> whether the name denotes the graph or not. The reasons for that are because
> the RDF WG at the time couldn't find consensus.

I just found another example that strongly relies on graph IRIs
pointing to the same instance as that IRI in subject/object position:
nanopublications. For example: http://nanopub.org/wordpress/?page_id=57

Does anybody know of other examples?
I'm thinking of collecting supporting cases for the RDF mailing list.

Posting this on public-hydra because the data/metadata separation
has important use cases within our domain.


Received on Monday, 9 November 2015 16:09:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 9 November 2015 16:09:21 UTC