Re: [GRAPHS] g-box - abstraction or concrete?

This turned into a private conversation between you and me, which breaks the purpose:-)

On Feb 28, 2011, at 18:20 , Nathan wrote:
[snip]
> 
> I agree though, lol. I believe Sandro and Pat are correct when they say there is an abstract set of triples (g-snap) and a realization of those triples (g-text), and I believe you and Sandro are correct when you say a g-box exists, and I agree with (Pierre?) that g-boxes are abstract and that we deal with realizations of them, and thus conclude that there must be four concepts - that isn't to say the four must be mentioned in RDF that is, just that they must be identified and considered during this process.
> 
> The distinction between is that we have boxes (think named graph where the value changes over time) and sets of triples (don't change state), and both of those things can be split in to abstractions and realizations. Previously we had the term "RDF Graph" to refer to a set of triples, both the abstract mathematical set and the realization of it. And in the community the same was true for "Named Graphs" (boxes).
> 
> Question is, which ones do we need to mention? My contention is that if we are to have trig like named graphs, where a single name can refer to two different quoted graphs over time, then we need the concept of "box" in there (remaining silent on state though), and that quoted graphs do not require the concept of "box". We definitely need the concept of a "graph", unsure whether we need to recognize both the abstraction (g-snap) and the realization (g-text) though, certainly the g-text I would have thought, since we only really deal with g-texts generally.
> 
> If you agree, at least in principal that there are four distinct concepts here, then I can write up that wiki page to describe them all for our reference (and to clear an action). Noting that the presence on the wiki page doesn't indicate we need to fully or partially handle them  in the specs. Thus, let me know when we're clear :)

Hm. I *think* I understand what you say, I am still not *convinced* by what you say:-) I mean: what you say is consistent but I am not sure we need this level of differentiation. 

Writing all this down does not harm, of course.

Ivan

----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf