- From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
- Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 16:47:51 +0200
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, "public-rdf-wg@w3.org >> \"public-rdf-wg@w3.org\"" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
[snip] On 04/18/2011 03:40 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: >>>>> My very sketchy feeling that if we define a good old class, say, >>>>> G-box, we can then: >>>>> >>>>> - say that <g> rdf:type G-box which is the identification of a >>>>> g-box >>>> >>>> This by itself would not attach the name to a particular g-box, >>>> however. >> >> neither does >> >> <foaf.rdf#me> a foaf:Person . >> >> attach the name to a particular person. > > Of course; but in the case of *graph* naming, we expect more than > simply having a description; we expect the name to be usable to actually > locate and get (a representation of) the graph. So we need a 'baptism' > syntax or convention which does the necessary attaching to the name to > the graph. We are taking about a g-box here, so "something whose state is a graph", not the graph itself. >>> Correct. Some hand-waving may be necessary when we define g-*. >> >> well, if the URI of the g-box is in the http: scheme, and it is >> dereferenceable (with a 200 OK code), then the HTTP protocol may provide >> that hand-waving... > > Not by itself. We need to actually state (it can be as simple as a > statement in the specs) that the http GET is what indeed identifies the > graph being named. (And of course this statement needs to be phrased > very carefully to allow for g-boxes and so forth; are we naming the box > or the graph that is its state at the time of naming? What is GOT > (GETted?) by a 404 error or a 303 redirect? And so on.) Well, HTTP explicitly states that a URI identifies a resource [1], and then gives semantics to the status codes one obtains when sending HTTP requests to the given URI. I like to think of 'identification' in HTTP as a subset of 'identification' in RDF, more precisely as the restriction of this relation to "information resources" [3]. So if I read <uri1> a :G-box . and then, by fetching <uri1>, I get a "200 Ok" and a Turtle representation (a g-text), then I would tend to consider that <uri1> the g-box "contains" the triples that I parse from the g-text. Note that I do not suggest that *any* g-box should be accessible through HTTP. I can think of hidden g-boxes, imaginary g-boxes... pa [1] http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec1.html#sec1.3 [2] http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.2.1 [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#id-resources
Received on Monday, 18 April 2011 14:48:15 UTC