Re: [Graphs] Fwd: Comments on "SPARQL 1.1 Uniform HTTP Protocol for Managing RDF Graphs"

On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:

> I have taken the liberty of forwarding this to the WG. I suggest that we
> need to sort this issue out, and to liaise with DAWG in order to avoid a
> clash of ideas and terminologies being set in stone by them before we can
> get our ideas clear. Sorry to be so pushy, but this does seem rather
> important and the SPARQL timetable has made it urgent.
>
> The following seem to me to be the key issues.
> (1) Getting the basic distinctions clear between RDF
> graphs/documents/resources/g-boxes/g-snaps/g-texts/datasets. Hopefully we
> can all come to agree on this boiling down to a small number of basic ideas.
> (2) Getting a single clear voice on what exactly it is that a name names,
> and, to quote Kjetil: "What does the URI of a information resource
> consisting of some RDF triples identify?"
> (3) Aligning the answer to (2) with some kind of coherent story about HTTP
> and RDF 'information resources'. Maybe endorsing the http-range-14 rule
> about 303 redirects, for example, or maybe not: whatever, but at least
> saying SOMETHING definite about it.
>

I'm OK with coming up with a coherent story around HTTP and RDF information
resources, as long as any "standard" behavior in this respect is also
optional.  Many implementors are interested in named graph URIs only as a
means of grouping triples in an RDF store, to identify some context for use
with a SPARQL query service, and never intended those graph URIs to be
dereferenceable.

In this and other discussions, I've seen statements along the lines of "when
http-poked, this URI emits..." -- just keep in mind that for some of us, the
answer to that is "nothing".

-Alex