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 22:58:04 +0100
Cc: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, Hydra <public-hydra@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F4406B1E-BFB8-49D2-9296-4D40D79B8A5E@ugent.be>
To: Karol SzczepaƄski <karol.szczepanski@gmail.com>
Hi Karol,

Thanks for the extra example!

> The difference is that we also have a "special" meta-graph, that binds graphs with their resources.

In seems that you then indeed run into the same problem that nanopublications do, because:

> <graph://a> foaf:primaryTopic <http://a> .

The subject of this triple does not identify the same resource as this graph:

> <graph://a> {
> <http://a> some:value "" .
> }

Translating the above, according to the RDF 1.1 spec, your RDF means:
1) some subject named <graph://a> has as primary topic the object <http://a>
2) there is a graph (that happens to be labeled <graph://a>) containing one triple
But note that the RDF 1.1 semantics do not allow to conclude
that the subject from point a) is the same as the graph from point b).

> This way we can easily bind graphs with their respective resources and vice-versa.

So unfortunately, you are not binding the resource to the graph,
because RDF 1.1 semantics don't let you.
That's exactly my problem, and nanopublication's, too.

BTW, any particular reason for preferring a separate meta graph,
over letting graphs describe themselves, like the following?

<graph://a> {
    <graph://a> foaf:primaryTopic <http://a> .
    <http://a> some:value "" .


Received on Monday, 9 November 2015 21:58:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 9 November 2015 21:58:37 UTC