- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 14:36:08 -0500
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- Cc: Gavin Carothers <gavin@topquadrant.com>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
On Mar 18, 2011, at 6:15 PM, Nathan wrote: > Gavin Carothers wrote: >> 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. > > I think I agree, and also that the above perhaps says that blank node identifiers are in fact little more than serialization/g-text specific features that let you reassemble a graph - that is, not all serializations would need blank node identifiers, and they have no meaning in rdf semantics or concepts. Exactly right. > > That said, I feel like there's something/some-detail I'm missing, need to think on it harder. I don't think so, you have got top the nub here. Pat > > Best, > > Nathan > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Saturday, 19 March 2011 19:36:51 UTC