- From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr>
- Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 15:29:44 +0200
- CC: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>
Talking about graph literals: how one can say that the content of a g-box at a certain point in time is a certain g-snap? If named graphs are in fact named g-box, then how can one relate this name to the content at a certain point in time (for instance, to talk about a certain version of the g-box)? Another question is, how can one specify the differences between two versions of a g-box? For instance, g-box@2011-04-01 extends g-box@2010-04-01 by adding the triples { :x :y :z . :a :b :c .}. How can I explicit refer to these specific 2 triples if I can only talk about g-boxes? As other people suggested, I have the impression that there are use cases for identifying g-boxes and use cases for identifying g-snaps. My opinion at the moment is that we use graph literals for g-snaps (so we don't have to give them names, they are fully defined by their lexical value) and we name g-boxes. That is, in TriG: :G1 { :a :b :c . :x :y "{:u :v :w.}"^^rdf:gsnap } :G1 identifies a g-box which somehow is related^{1} to the g-snap: :a :b :c . :x :y "{:u :v :w.}"^^rdf:gsnap and "{:u :v :w.}"^^rdf:gsnap is identifying exactly the g-snap: :u :v :w. I can also say: :G1 :earlierVersion [ :content "{:a :b :c .}"^^rdf:gsnap . :atTime "2010-04-01"^^xsd:date . ] ----Footnote---- {1} I leave the relationship between :G1 and the content inside the curly brackets to a later email. AZ. Le 08/04/2011 14:30, Richard Cyganiak a écrit : > Forwarding on behalf of Ian ... > > Begin forwarded message: >> >> Thanks Richard, >> >> A very slight clarification is that the example I gave was from >> http://open.vocab.org/ but http://schemapedia.com/ uses the same style >> of RDF. >> >> An example of one of schemapedia's embedded examples is: >> >> http://schemapedia.com/examples/68740744ab36d400d81a1d1af23701e7.rdf >> >> Ian >> >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Richard Cyganiak<richard@cyganiak.de> wro= >> te: >>> I just had a conversation with Ian Davis on Twitter that yielded a use ca= >> se for defining datatype IRIs for graph literals. I thought I'd share it as= >> input into ISSUE-5 [1]. >>> >>> He uses Turtle snippets as literals in SchemaPedia [2]. SchemaPedia is a = >> site that helps find RDF vocabularies, and it lists example usage snippets = >> for the vocabularies. The site's back-end is RDF-based. Turtle literals are= >> used to store the examples, as well as change events when examples are mod= >> ified. See [3] for a typical change event. >>> >>> Currently Ian uses plain literals, because no datatype was readily availa= >> ble. >>> >>> The idea of abusing Ivan's format URIs from [4] came up. >>> >>> Best, >>> Richard >>> >>> >>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/5 >>> [2] http://schemapedia.com/ >>> [3] http://api.talis.com/stores/openvocab/meta?about=3Dhttp://open.vocab.= >> org/changes/f07ca76699a536dd38b5cbbbe1ba181d&output=3Drdf >>> [4] http://www.w3.org/ns/formats/ >> > > -- Antoine Zimmermann Researcher at: Laboratoire d'InfoRmatique en Image et Systèmes d'information Database Group 7 Avenue Jean Capelle 69621 Villeurbanne Cedex France Tel: +33(0)4 72 43 61 74 - Fax: +33(0)4 72 43 87 13 Lecturer at: Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Lyon 20 Avenue Albert Einstein 69621 Villeurbanne Cedex France antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
Received on Friday, 8 April 2011 13:30:13 UTC