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

Re: [GRAPHS] Follow your graph nose.

From: David Wood <david.wood@talis.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 09:17:33 -0500
Cc: Fabien Gandon <fabien.gandon@inria.fr>, <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <85ABE0F5-289E-4614-A111-3F6202C928F1@talis.com>
To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
I suggest (as co-chair this time!) that the Graph TF decide whether this is a serious consideration.  If so, the TF can raise it at a telecon to the rest of the WG.

Regards,
Dave




On Mar 2, 2011, at 09:09, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:

> The SPARQL 1.1 RDF Dataset HTTP Protocol (near but not yet at Last Call)
> specifies that a GET against the IRI of a graph in a graph store should
> return the contents of that graph. See
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/http-rdf-update/#http-get .
> 
> If this WG feels strongly otherwise, it would make a lot of sense to
> setup a cross-WG coordination group as soon as possible, as the SPARQL
> WG hopes to move to Last Call within a few weeks or so.
> 
> Lee
> 
> On 3/2/2011 8:04 AM, Fabien Gandon wrote:
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
> 
> Find out more about Talis at http://www.talis.com/
> shared innovation™
> 
> Any views or personal opinions expressed within this email may not be those of Talis Information Ltd or its employees. The content of this email message and any files that may be attached are confidential, and for the usage of the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient, then please return this message to the sender and delete it. Any use of this e-mail by an unauthorised recipient is prohibited.
> 
> Talis Information Ltd is a member of the Talis Group of companies and is registered in England No 3638278 with its registered office at Knights Court, Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, B37 7YB.
> 
> Talis North America is Talis Inc., 11400 Branch Ct., Fredericksburg, VA 22408, United States of America.
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 14:18:09 UTC

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