W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > February 2019

Re: Slides for Berlin Data Workshop

From: james anderson <james@dydra.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 12:18:26 +0000
Message-ID: <010201692ee44665-04c20ff6-c587-442a-8677-f228033daaf6-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com>
To: Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
good afternoon;

> On 2019-02-27, at 10:19:34, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr> wrote:
> Sandro,
> In my opinion, this topic should not be debated in the JSON-LD group. It is of course appropriate for the N3 group though.

as this topic an aspect of using json-ld, this group seems a fine place to discuss it.
> Since you ask about graph metadata, I would never use RDF to describe RDF graphs. I would describe the files, or the information resources that encode RDF graphs. These things have a creator, a creation date, access rights, etc. RDF graphs (i.e. sets of RDF triples) are not created. They all are existing in the set of all RDF graphs at the same time.
> In this regard, the interpretation of Carroll et al. is superior: by interpreting the graph name as the named graph pair, you can distinguish the creation dates of two graph-encodings:
> <#mygrah> dc:created "2019-02-26T16:53:42+01:00"^^xsd:dateTime .
> <#yourgrah> dc:created "1999-01-01T00:00:00Z"^^xsd:dateTime .
> <#mygraph> { <timbl> a <Person> }
> <#yourgraph> { <timbl> a <Person> }
> If <#mygraph> and <#yourgraph> are interpreted as the graph "{<timbl> a <Person>}", then this graph has 2 creation dates, which is probably not what you want with your metadata.

how is the not using "RDF to describe RDF graphs”?

best regards, from berlin,
james anderson | james@dydra.com | http://dydra.com
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2019 12:18:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:52 UTC