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

Re: Generic "Graph" Use Cases

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 15:55:42 +0000
Message-ID: <4D74FFFE.3050507@webr3.org>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
CC: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> On 7 Mar 2011, at 15:05, Nathan wrote:
>> Nathan wrote:
>>> Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>>>> How about this: Let's assume I have a g-box that for whatever reason has been “sealed” and made immutable. Is there any RDF statement that you'd possibly like to make about this immutable g-box that you wouldn't want to make about the g-snap sealed therein, or vice versa?
>>> no :) a sealed g-box is perfect
>>> now all we need is a way to seal the state of a g-box yesterday, which is in a different state today.
>> and of course, pass by value rather than reference (so to speak) - which is the primary g-snap case, so you don't have to go looking something up, only to find it's either gone or changed, or because it's entirely impractical to mint x many URIs and host x many persistent docs, when you could just quote, annotate and send.
> Thanks, that helped.
> I like the way how an analogous case is handled on the Web: You can't really name representations on the Web, but you can set up an immutable single-representation resource and name that. Then you use information outside of the protocol -- e.g., links in the representations -- to organize the different resources in a way that allows clients to understand how they relate. This is how you can have versioning on the Web without stepping outside of the basic URI/resource/representation schema. And if you like, then you can still standardize some extension that makes the relationships explicit on the protocol level, cf. Memento.
> Immutable graphs and pass-by-value can be done in the same way with named-g-boxes -- after all, it's up to the g-box owner to decide whether updates are possible, and they can communicate information about immutability etc as RDF statements.

Yes, I understand what you're saying and see benefits in the web model 
too, version control can be strapped on - I'll need to think hard on it 
and write/weigh up some of the options, probably soem design trade off's 
to be made somewhere.

One thing I can say I'm certain on, is that we definitely need a way to 
hook a g-box or snap to a name, a uri - so much can be done with just that.


Received on Monday, 7 March 2011 15:57:28 UTC

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