Re: Multiple Named Graph

On 25 Mar 2014, at 14:59, Reto Gmür <reto@apache.org> wrote:

> 
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:30 PM, henry.story@bblfish.net <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
> So to start from the beginnging again.
> I checked the mentions of "named graph" in the spec.
> 
> In the definitions section:
> [[
> Linked Data Platform RDF Source (LDP-RS)
> An LDPR whose state is fully represented in RDF, corresponding to an RDF named graph. See also the term RDF Source from [rdf11-concepts].
> ]]
> 
> Section 5.1:
> [[ 
> Alternatively, servers may provide the net worth resource and supporting containers in a single response representations. When doing this, a preference would be for RDF formats that support multiple named graphs
> 
> If as you quote above, the state of an LDPR is fully represented in RDF why should the preference be to return a format that support multiple named graphs? The latter suggest the resource can be more completely represented using more than just RDF which contradicts the first.

I don't agree. You can represent graphs by using datatypes that map strings to graphs. For example one could invent one such as 
rdf:Turtle .


:joe :believes "<http://jane.org/#me> <http://relationship.vocab/loves> <http://joe.org/#i> ."^^rdf:Turtle .

RDF semantics allows this to be done. It would allow you to encode graphs in simple RDF formats. Don't forget that
in the RDF semantics a datatype is a function from a string to an object. The ones defined by xsd are numbers, binary, date.
Nothing stops you from having maps from rdf syntaxes to the graphs they represent.


> 
> It would help to understand your positions if you could state your take on Sandro's statements/questions.
> 
> Reto
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/