- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:36:17 -0600
- To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- Cc: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
On Dec 13, 2011, at 5:29 PM, David Wood wrote: > Hi all, > > I had a lengthy conversation with TimBL about named graphs at the LEDP Workshop [1] last week. Briefly, he feels that the semantics for named graphs should work like this: > > - An RDF Graph is named via a URI. OK so far... > - The URI denotes the RESTful Representation that is returned when the URI is resolved. > > That is, the URI denotes the graph's contents, not the graph Resource itself. I don't understand what that means. What is the content of a graph? But in any case, doesnt that directly contradict the previous sentence? But whatever, it seems very odd for TimBL to advocate that an IRI not denote a resource. Are you *sure* you have this right? > > How do Peter and Pat feel about that? > > TimBL: Please let us know if I misrepresented your position. > > Separately, Elsevier representatives Brad Allen and Alan Yagoda informed me that by "named graphs" they mean an RDF Graph that is referenced by a URI. Right, that is what the term was defined to mean in the paper which introduced the terminology in the first place. > Resolution of that URI returns the graph contents (a g-text) via RESTful interaction. No, that simply does not make sense. Graphs do not have contents and do not interact RESTfully or otherwise. Graphs are mathematical abstractions, remember? An RDF graph is a *set* of triples.... Maybe if you can say what you mean using the terminology we have all agreed upon, I might be able to figure out what you are saying. Pat > That would seem to be in line with TimBL's preference. > > Regards, > Dave > > > > > On Dec 13, 2011, at 15:54, Guus Schreiber wrote: > >> All, >> >> It is quiet on the mailing list. The main thing we seem to be in limbo about is the GRAPHS debate. I suggest we devote the meeting to this theme. I have included in the agenda some discussion topics that came up in recent telecons, plus the email of Andy on TriG examples. I suggest we also have a meta-discussion on what our options are for getting consensus. >> >> The agenda is at: >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.12.14 >> >> Hope to speak to many of you tomorrow. >> Guus >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 01:39:23 UTC