W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-prov@w3.org > October 2011

Re: Use case for g-snaps

From: Kai Eckert <kai@informatik.uni-mannheim.de>
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:45:29 +0200
Message-ID: <4E89D899.2060403@informatik.uni-mannheim.de>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
CC: public-rdf-prov@w3.org

Am 03.10.2011 17:28, schrieb Sandro Hawke:
> I think I agree with everything you say, but I don't see why this leads
> us to need something more than constant g-boxes (instead of g-snaps), or
> why this would be only a "best practice" instead of the same level of
> standard as other things in RDF.     If I give you the URI of a g-box
> and state that its content never changes, then how is that different (in
> capability) from me giving you the URI of a graph?    As far as I can
> tell, it's much better because you can potentially dereference the URI.
>    -- Sandro

I think, we simply agree. I see no difference between a constant g-box 
(however that is represented, e.g. by stating that it is constant) and a 
URI of a g-snap (you said graph, I assume g-snap) from a user's POV. The 
question is, if such a mechanism (identifiable, dereferencable 
g-snap/constant g-box) is inside the scope of the RDF WG. If it is not, 
is there a WG that fits? My only concern is that we leave this question 
to the implementors, maybe by refering to some best-practice. This makes 
it harder to define robust provenance models for RDF data and probably 
leads to incompatible solutions.



Kai Eckert
Universit├Ątsbibliothek Mannheim
Stellv. Leiter Abteilung Digitale Bibliotheksdienste
Schloss Schneckhof West / 68131 Mannheim
Tel. 0621/181-2946  Fax 0621/181-2918
Received on Monday, 3 October 2011 15:45:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:07 UTC