W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > February 2011

Re: [GRAPHS] g-box, g-snap, and g-text

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 04:01:11 +0000
Message-ID: <4D672987.60105@webr3.org>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
CC: public-rdf-wg <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Sandro Hawke wrote:
> I'm still having trouble following the discussion due to ambiguity of
> terms.  But I don't want us to argue about terms at this stage.  So I'd
> like to propose some temporary terms.  They are intentionally a little
> quirky and not suitable for use in our final specs.  Instead, they are
> meant to be short and unambiguous and relatively memorable.  At the end
> of this email, I try to connect them to other people's terms.
> Here they are:
> 1.  A "g-box" is a container, like a "set" data structure in
> programming.  It holds some RDF arcs, with their nodes. (Alternatively,
> it holds some RDF triples.).  G-boxes can overlap, sharing some of the
> same nodes and arcs.  Two g-boxes can happen to have the same contents
> (right now) while being distinct g-boxes. G-boxes contents can change:
> today a particular g-box might contain the triples { my:a my:b _:x.
> my:a my:c _:x }, and tomorrow it might instead contain { my:a my:b _:x.
> my:a my:c2 _:x }.
> 2.  A "g-snap" as an idealized snapshot of a g-box; it's a mathematical
> set of RDF arcs, with their nodes.  (Alternatively, a mathematical set
> of RDF triples.) Like g-boxes, g-snaps can overlap, sharing nodes and
> arcs.  Unlike g-boxes, it makes no sense to talk about g-snaps
> changing: they are defined to be exactly the collection of their
> elements.  If a g-snap were to "change" it would simply be a different
> g-snap.  If two g-snaps have the same nodes/arcs, they are really the
> same g-snap.  The contents of a g-box at any point in time are a
> g-snap. 
> 3. A "g-text" is a particular sequence of characters or bytes which
> conveys a particular g-snap in some language (eg turtle or rdf/xml). If
> you can parse a g-text, you know what is in the g-snap it conveys
> (except blank nodes, as discussed below).  You can tell someone exactly
> what is in a particular g-box at some instant by sending them a
> g-text.  (You send them the g-text which conveys the g-snap which is
> the current state/contents of that g-box.)
> Are those terms and descriptions clear enough?  Are there edge cases
> they are missing?  

brilliant :) clear and covers everything afaict.

> Now, about URIs:
> * A g-box can exist without any name or persistent way of referring to
>   it; it can exist as a data structure in a running program, or I
>   suppose it can exists in someone's mind.  Long-lived g-boxes
>   probably SHOULD be given a preferred single working URL, but there
>   might be times when you do don't want to give it any, or when you
>   want to give it several URLs.
> * You can convey a g-snap with a g-text, but I don't think you usually
>   want to name them with URIs.  Sometimes you want to put a g-snap
>   into a URI, but that's rare, since in many cases g-snaps are too
>   long for most URI-handling software.  For constrained applications,
>   though, where overrun is unlikely or okay, you can embed a g-text 
>   somewhere in an http URI (eg, as a query parameter), or maybe use 
>   "data:" URI.

again, great - and good use of URL for g-box names.

> And blank nodes?   I think it works like this:
> * Two g-snaps can contain the same blank node.  A simple example of
>   this is to take a g-snap containing at least one blank node, then
>   construct another by adding the triple { my:a my:b my:c }.  The
>   original g-snap and the one resulting from the union both contain
>   the same blank nodes.

mnghh - the same statements, the same sub-g-snap's - if they're aren't 
labelled with blank node identifiers sure (no duplicate statements in a 
g-snap union could cover this), else they are scoped at g-box level and 
questions such as consistent naming/reference over time come in to play.

> * By a similar argument, I believe two g-boxes can also contain the
>   same blank node, although not all software will support this.  Given
>   a g-box A, I could construct A' to contain whatever A contains and
>   also { my:a my:b my:c }.  This happens sometimes in real programs;
>   I'd be curious to know which RDF APIs disallow sharing blank nodes
>   between their graph-storage instances; my experience is they allow
>   it when it's not a problem (eg they are both in memory right now).

as above, it's only the scoping of identifiers which is a problem here, 
but if blank node identifiers only exist at g-text level then this may 
not be a problem.

> * In general, while g-texts do convey g-snaps, they do not identify
>   the blank nodes in them.  So, in fact, if you go 
>       g-snap A --> g-text --> g-snap A'
>   A=A' only if it does not contain blank nodes, because parsing a
>   g-snap results in all-new blank nodes.

again, it could be only the scoping of the bnode identifiers which cause 
this "issue", if the identifiers didn't exists at g-snap level then A=A' 
with or without bnodes, equality would/could be if they had the same set 
of statements.

>   We might define new RDF syntaxes which allow for several g-texts to
>   be grouped in such a way that blank nodes can be shared between them.
>   This is an issue for our work item, "Either [the turtle] syntax or a 
>   related syntax should also support multiple graphs and graph stores."
> How's that sound?    Make sense?
> Okay, relating to other people's terms...
> "Tokens", as I read today's email, seem to mostly be g-texts but
> sometimes be something that can change over time, and thus be a
> container for a g-text, something we might call a "g-text-box".  I
> think this later meaning conflates things in a way which will cause
> problems, eg for understanding content-negotiation.

can't say (Pat's term)

> "Graphs" in the RDF Semantics are g-snaps.


> "Named Graphs", as in SPARQL 1.0, are g-boxes which happen to each
> be assigned a URI.

agree, and would also say a resource/ir in web terms.

> "Graph Literals", as suggested by N3 (and disagreeing with Nathan,
> sorry), are a feature of an RDF syntax that allows you to denote a
> g-snap by a special kind of term (a "graph literal"). In n3, it looks
> like: 

np, I agree w/ the above, "a/the lexical form of a g-snap" makes perfect 
sense to me.

>     { _:x my:says { _x: foaf:name "Sandro Hawke" } }.
> One can approximate this with every RDF syntax by using a
> suitably-defined URI scheme or datatype, such as:
>     { _:x my:says "_:x <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name> \"Sandro Hawke\""^^my:turtleCode }
> This isn't as convenient as the N3 approach, and doesn't doesn't allow
> blank nodes to be shared (in the second example, the _:x's are not
> connected), but it does work in existing RDF syntaxes.
> I'd better stop now.

all sounds great, bar some notes on the bnode identifier scoping. +10 
and thanks for writing this Sandro


Received on Friday, 25 February 2011 04:02:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:55 UTC