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

Re: the necessity of describing responses in-band

From: Karol Szczepański <karol.szczepanski@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 15:48:42 +0100
Message-ID: <C605FAAE721B47649B3DADC1994F07EE@Alien>
To: "Ruben Verborgh" <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
Cc: "Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, "Hydra" <public-hydra@w3.org>
Hi Ruben

>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.
Indeed - RDF spec doesnt touch that issue. We could use i.e. rdfg:Graph to 
denote that <graph://a> is a graph, but still it would be on the vocabulary 
level rather than RDF internals.

>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 "" .
As I wrote, RomanticWeb is a tool, thus it was easier and more efficient to 
have a single "special purpose" graph that can be queried than to have it 
scattered around the dataset. I feel it's also less polluting.


Received on Wednesday, 11 November 2015 14:49:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 November 2015 14:49:07 UTC