- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:29:43 +0000
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 20 Dec 2011, at 00:46, Pat Hayes wrote: > > On Dec 19, 2011, at 4:32 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > >> On 15 Dec 2011, at 18:35, Dan Brickley wrote: >>> Does log:semantics act as an owl:FunctionalProperty? i.e. within a >>> single graph, can we expect at most one true property value for it? >> >> I don't think so. log:semantics depends on retrieval of a representation, and the result of that action may be different for different clients with different configuration, different network location, or different access credentials. >> >> Content negotiation by language is a nice example where the same client in the same network location and same access credentials would receive different representations, and hence different log:semantics, based on user configuration. > > ? IS it obvious that it would be different? The object of log:semantics is the RDF graph that the retrieved representation parses into, not the representation itself. Are there cases where content negotiation would give a different RDF graph from the same resource? (Genuine question, not rhetoric.) Yes. For example RDF/XML cannot represent all RDF graphs, so there are cases when an RDF documents that served by a SPARQL CONSTRUCT for e.g. will necessarily return different content when you conneg RDF/XML v's Turtle (for e.g.). I doubt this is that common in practice however. - Steve -- Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK +44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2011 10:30:19 UTC