Re: Fwd: Using Statement Identifiers to Manage Provenance

Olaf Hartig wrote:
> Hey Graham,
> 
> On Wednesday 18 May 2011 11:01:17 Graham Klyne wrote:
>> [...]
>> My current sense is that RDF community consensus favours named graphs:
>> (1) the SPARQL syntax makes explicit provision for querying named graphs,
>> (2) the current RDF working group is giving consideration to including a
>> mechanism to encode named graphs within a single RDF documemt
>> (3) even when using RDF without named graph support, named graphs map
>> directly to a natural web-based implementation: RDF documents retrievable
>> from web URIs.
>> [...]
> 
> I never understood this argument completely so far.
> How exactly does this mapping you refer to work?

I assume you refer to (3) - it's simply if an RDF document is published on the 
web using a URI, then that URI can be interpreted as denoting that graph.  If 
that used in RDF statements published separately, those statements can be 
metadata (e.g. provenance) about that graph.

This is not always the most convenient approach.  I was just using it as an 
illustration that named graphs are not a great distance away from plain RDF on 
the web.

#g
--

Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2011 21:51:08 UTC