Re: ACTION-115: Note on proxy graph URI

On 13 Oct 2009, at 08:34, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:

> On Monday 12. October 2009 18:45:33 Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
>> Ok.  I was using the term proxy to tease out whether we were talking
>> about URI 'aliases' or service endpoints
> Tihihi! I'd say that was a successful tease :-)
>> In which case, I believe this settles the issue of whether this  
>> induces
>> good 'HTTP behavior', since presumably you can use all the verbs
>> (PUT/POST/GET/DELETE) uniformly on these alias URIs as though you  
>> were
>> using the IRI of the graph directly. In addition, conditional GETs  
>> would
>> work as expected.
> Indeed. My argument was that one cannot infer the "original" graph  
> URI from
> the "proxy" URI due to the opacity axiom, which still holds true, I
> believe, but if we treat them as equivalent aliases, this becomes
> irrelevant.

That assumes that there is an "original" graph.

If I import into my store and run  
a few INSERTs on it to add some extra annotations I'd like, then  
there's no original graph to refer back to, as the local
will return different triples from

Similarly if you import stuff to the graph http://myapp.example/ 
data.rdf, you can't dereference that, so it's not really an alias for  
a URI in that sense.

But, I'm not sure if that's the sense in which you meant alias.

- Steve

Steve Harris
Garlik Limited, 2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK
+44(0)20 8973 2465
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10  

Received on Tuesday, 13 October 2009 10:12:28 UTC