- From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 23:00:39 +0200
- To: John Walker <john.walker@semaku.com>
- Cc: Hydra <public-hydra@w3.org>, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Hi John, > However there is plenty of interesting stuff in <link> elements. Interesting stuff that is not in <body>? > In the hyrda:Collection in the examples, how come you don't use hydra:member to > link the > collection to the members. The examples aren't necessarily complete; this link could indeed be made explicitly and it's perhaps a good idea for many scenarios. > Another point I'd like to raise is the use of quads rather than triples. > As you are most likely aware there are no agreed formal semantics for RDF > datasets [1]. Yes and that's quite horrible… anybody knows why the graph IRI is only a syntactical construct? Seemed much more logical to make it the name of the graph, would give the term "named graph" a more logical meaning. And if you want a graph that has nothing to do with the name, just pick a different name then anyway. > But do you think that using quads would come at the risk of interoperability > issues? Hard to predict, but I don't think so. > What would happen if someone did a LOAD operation of one of these quads > documents into a store? Nothing bad, it seems. Do you think of scenarios where things go wrong? > Would it make sense to state the metadata graph is a subgraph of the main graph? I wouldn't do that; the main graph is data for me. > http://breweryld.semaku.com/beer/8GpObe > identifies the document (information resource) and URI like > http://breweryld.semaku.com/beer/8GpObe#id > identifies the thing described in the document. Yes, we certainly need to distinguish. Best, Ruben
Received on Wednesday, 7 October 2015 21:01:11 UTC