- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:02:35 +0000
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 14/12/11 01:36, Pat Hayes wrote: > > 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. I'm confused on this one - is that the same URI? "the URI is resolved" seems to be the g-box "The URI denotes the RESTful Representation" is seems to be the g-snap. A concrete example would help me so as to see which URIs are dereference, and to what, and which need not or are not. I could read it as: - The URI <tag:foobar> denotes the RESTful Representation that is returned when the URI <http://example/thing> is resolved (dereferenced = GETted) This seems like the use of the "named representation" dataset pattern. Maybe "named value" pattern is a better name. It stresses the event oriented view of the web. >> 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. Does "referenced" mean "located at"? This seems like the use of the "located at" dataset pattern. g-box had some representation at some point in time. That isn't what I read the NG paper as saying - I read it as naming values. (Until Jeremy said a few TCs ago, it wasn't.) Andy >> 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 09:03:05 UTC