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

Re: [GRAPHS] Follow your graph nose.

From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 14:29:01 +0100
Message-ID: <4D6E461D.8060905@insa-lyon.fr>
To: Fabien Gandon <fabien.gandon@inria.fr>
CC: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
If I had to choose, I would choose Option (1) and Option (2).
A common practice is to provide description of the document that 
contains triples, together with the triples, within the same document. 
We can very well assume that the IRI of the document is the name of a g-box.

So, given your dataset, by dereferencing :G1, I would get the following 
triples:

dbpedia:Antibes geo:lat 45.580833 .
dbpedia:Antibes geo:long 7.123889 .
:G1 dc:date "2010-11-12"^^xsd:date .
:G1 rdf:type ex:GPSData .

And then, no need to debate on which opinion is best, they are both good.


Regards,
AZ.


Le 02/03/2011 14:04, Fabien Gandon a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> An other issue that was touched in the discussions about IRI to identify g-boxes/graphs/etc. is the application of the follow your nose principle of linked data to RDF graph [1].
>
> As I remember from the workshop there were at least two opinions on that matter:
>
> Opinion (1) : When I follow the IRI of a graph I should get a serialization of the triples contained in that graph.
>
> Opinion (2) : When I follow the IRI of a graph I should get triples about that IRI.
>
> In other words if I have the following dataset:
>
> :G1 { http://dbpedia.org/page/Antibes geo:lat 43.580833 ; geo:long 7.123889 . }
>
> :G1 dc:date "2010-11-12"^^xsd:date ;
>      rdf:type ex:GPSData .
>
> On dereferencing :G1
>
> Option (1) would return
> http://dbpedia.org/page/Antibes geo:lat 43.580833 ; geo:long 7.123889 .
>
> Option (2) would return
> :G1 dc:date "2010-11-12"^^xsd:date ;
>      rdf:type ex:GPSData .
>
> Now I could see pros and cons for each option:
>
> Option (1) provides an easy way to fetch graphs.
> Option (2) seems to me more in-line with practices of linked data where the dereferencing often resembles a SPARQL DESCRIBE<URI>
>
> If I had to chose, I would prefer option (2) to have a more consistent behavior and remain independent of the type of resource identified by the IRI i.e. whether it is a graph or not I always get triples *about* the IRI / Resource. One could then have a vocabulary to allow additional queries e.g.
>
> :G1 rdf:type rdf:Graph ;
>      sparql:endpoint<http://dbpedia.org/sparql>  ;
>      ex:size "42" .
>
> That being said a third option that I didn't see mentioned so far could be to send everything on dereferencing the IRI i.e. the graph together with its metadata.
>
> Cheers,
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html
> --
> fabien, inria, @fabien_gandon, http://fabien.info
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Antoine Zimmermann
Researcher at:
Laboratoire d'InfoRmatique en Image et Systèmes d'information
Database Group
7 Avenue Jean Capelle
69621 Villeurbanne Cedex
France
Lecturer at:
Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Lyon
20 Avenue Albert Einstein
69621 Villeurbanne Cedex
France
antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr
http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 13:29:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:03 UTC