- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 19:35:59 +0000
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Andy Seaborne wrote: > In g-box/g-snap/g-text, there is third concept which is g-snap and the > word "respresents" is used for g-box->g-snap (inc in Gavin's diagram) > but in AWWW a representation is the bits (g-text) returned. If it helps any, there's a little noticed nuance in REST and the HTTP spec which speaks of two different things: "representation" content+meta "resource representation" content+meta associated with a URI Likewise we have a "g-box" and then a "named g-box", which gives us another layer of terms: a "named g-box" a "g-snap of named g-box" a "g-text representation of a (g-snap of a named g-box)" > Is g-snap->g-text is just a function of the content type? It depends, and is more complex, on one level then yes a g-snap is 1-* with g-text. Many g-text's can encode the same g-snap, the bytes in each g-text will be different, likewise the content-type, encoding pattern different ways of writing the same graph), content-length etc. However, when you add in the named dimension, then two identical g-texts can differ only in the named-gbox they are associated with. That is to say, the association between g-text and the name of the g-box is critical, just as with http resources and their representations. More about this here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-awwsw/2011Mar/0006.html Best, Nathan
Received on Friday, 18 March 2011 19:37:16 UTC