W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp@w3.org > March 2014

Re: Multiple Named Graph

From: <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 12:29:10 +0100
Cc: Linked Data Platform WG <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>, public-ldp <public-ldp@w3.org>
Message-Id: <39E42CBB-BED2-43B6-9A9A-EA033D7264E7@bblfish.net>
To: Reto Gmür <reto@apache.org>

On 26 Mar 2014, at 10:50, Reto Gmür <reto@apache.org> wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:21 PM, henry.story@bblfish.net <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
> 
> 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.

If a client were to ask for text/n3 then you could give more context back. You would not be returning more information about the graph itself, you
would just be adding more information about the context of other graphs, presumably graphs referred to by the graph that was requested. So there
is no contradiction here.


> 
> 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.
> 
> Yes. But it change nothing to the contradiction above.
>  
>> 
>> It would help to understand your positions if you could state your take on Sandro's statements/questions.
> It still would.
> 
> Reto

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/


Received on Wednesday, 26 March 2014 11:29:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:16:37 UTC