Re: Contd: [pedantic-web] question about sioc / foaf usage

nat lu wrote:
>    [snip]
>>     The identity however is maintained by the "fingerprint" of the
>>     object graphs, and the URI is just an image of that fingerprint at
>>     some point in time/location ?
>    I think Identity is managed by the beholder of things, the one that
>    deems them important enough to be described, mentioned, talked
>    about, or referenced :-)
> I should have said what I was thinking in my head and not what my
> fingers were thinking : "The identity however is defined by the
> fingerprint of the object graphs, varying perhaps in time". If I have
> today a graph [a->b->c]  identified by [http://example.lod/myThing] and
> tomorrow I change it to [a->-b->c->d] or maybe [a->b->d], the address is
> the same, the access path is the same, it identifies the same thing, but
> the qualities of that thing have varied : ie, it is the same, but
> different. That difference may or may not be important or have
> consequences for the consumer of that thing.
> And unless I provide a versioning URI its not going to be possible to
> provide for recognising, or "replaying" an identity (or isolating the
> change in identity) of a thing, at some previous time - the address for
> instance start as [http://example.lod/v1/myThing] and then become
> [http://example.lod/v2/myThing] and so on ? But in this case the address
> has changed, and the internal access path might have, but they're still
> the same thing (I note it may perhaps also proxied by an agnostic
> [http://example.lod/myThing]. I suppose a canonical LoD-GUID and the
> version chain would need to be qualities of each version ?


then when you dereference the uri to get info you always hit the same
graph since you remove the fragment to dereference.

and to handle the versions you can use triples like..

  <> ,
  <> ;
  <> ;
  <> .

  <> .

thus you can always describe a single version of a resource, the latest
version, and so on.

<completely ducking out of the time-travel convo, even if it is related>


Received on Wednesday, 2 December 2009 15:23:54 UTC