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

Re: +blank node identifiers was- Re: [Graphs] Fwd: Comments on "SPARQL 1.1 Uniform HTTP Protocol for Managing RDF Graphs"

From: Gavin Carothers <gavin@topquadrant.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:49:30 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTimc2cuRe1BV8wNcAX4RX=iKwLChMwRL9ianN88M@mail.gmail.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
> Nathan wrote:
>> Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 19:22 +0000, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>> Is g-snap->g-text is just a function of the content type?
>>> Well, probably, for our purposes, I think so. There's a trivial case
>>> where it's not: the  arbitrary non-semantic
>>> variability in serialization, eg whitespace.  So, some notion of
>>> equivalence class of g-texts may be important.
>>> There's a related problem I don't know if we can or should address,
>>> which is how to deal with websites which use cookies or other
>>> information (IP address, browser sniffing, etc) to customize content.
>> I was going to raise that, it's where the "resource state" http/rest story
>> and the rdf "snapshot" story both breaks down.
>> Perhaps we should just scrap that story early on and have Named-G-Box = (
>> <u>, GB ) where GB = { gt1, gt2, gt3, ... }
>> Where gt* are g-texts, and GB is a g-box. A g-box being a set of g-texts
>> over time. And of course a named-g-box is just a GB associated with a URI.
>> If we need g-snap, which I'm sure we do, then perhaps each g-text
>> encodes/serializes a g-snap, and several g-texts may all encode/serialize
>> equivalent g-snaps, but that requires g-snap equality to be determined.
>> O, actually I quite like that, then all g-snap's are anonymous abstract
>> sets of rdf triples, and it's the set of g-texts (g-box) that is associated
>> with a name.
> Ahh, then blank node identifiers would be a property of the g-text, and the
> g-texts can be associated with a named-g-box, which would surely set blank
> node identifier scoping to the named-g-box level?

I think the issue with that is the idea of union graphs, and as Andy
mentioned on the telecon how that interacts with inference graphs. I'm
honestly not sure of what to do about blank nodes with graphs at all.
In all my use of named graphs I've always ended up avoiding them like
the plague.

Received on Friday, 18 March 2011 21:50:04 UTC

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