- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 11:04:09 -0500
- To: public-lod@w3.org
On 1/4/12 10:42 AM, Yrjana Rankka wrote: > On 1/4/12 17:00 , Kingsley Idehen wrote: >>> >> >> Trouble is that there isn't consensus re. this matter. >> >> For instance, one could assume that the URI / IRI of a named graph >> resolves to a description of said graph. That wouldn't really imply >> all the triples in the named graph :-) > > Let's consider this situation: > > GRAPH <x> > <s1> <p1> "val1"; > <p2> "val2"; > <p3> "val3". > > GRAPH <metadata> > <x> dc:created "somedate"; > dc:modified "someotherdate"; > dc:creator "Zaphod Beeblebrox". > > A client dereferences <x> > > What would you expect to get? > > Cheers, > SPARQL's use of GRAPH is the subject of intense debate as per Ivan's comment. At the current time, its just a *label* with SPARQL engine specific handling. The example above demonstrates why Name Graph IRIs need clarity. Right now -- as you know re. Virtuoso -- they serve as Identifiers for dataset partitioning, by default. If one really seeks a de-referencable URI/IRI for a named graph, then one should make triple based statements describing said named graph using its URI/IRI. Then you have a route to a Name that resolves to a description. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder& CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Received on Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:05:36 UTC