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

Re: Graph terminology & SPARQL 1.1 Graph Store Protocol

From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 09:11:55 +0200
Message-ID: <20110516091155.13156hlc61003i0w@webmail2.insa-lyon.fr>
To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>

In [3], the definition of Resource is "A network-accessible data  
object or service identified by an IRI" which is what is found in  
[RFC2616] but it is different from [WEBARCH], which is also  
referenced. In [WEBARCH], it says """The term "resource" is used in a  
general sense for whatever might be identified by a URI.""" This may  
be misleading: is a resource (according to SPARQL terminology)  
necessarily network-accessible or not? Can a person be a resource in  
the SPARQL protocol sense.

Also, the last sentence has a grammar problem:

"""Implementations of this protocol are HTTP/1.1 servers [RFC2616]  
MUST interpet request messages as graph management operations on an  
underlying Graph Store where the subject of the operation is indicated  
through the use of a Graph IRI."""

and the term "interpet" (sic) is mispelled.

Let me try to match these terms to our own g-* terminology:

RDF document -> g-text
RDF graph content -> g-box (?)

I don't see a term that would correspond to g-snap.


Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net> a écrit :

> Hi,
> The SPARQL WG has recently published 5 Last Call Working Drafts[1].  
> We'd welcome feedback on these drafts from anyone in this group (or  
> any other community member, of course).
> I wanted to call this group's attention particularly to the SPARQL  
> 1.1 Graph Store HTTP Protocol [2], which defines the meaning of  
> various HTTP verbs against a graph URI. In specifying this behavior,  
> the document defines some terms [3] that are likely also relevant to  
> this group's work.
> I'd like to ask that any interested members of this group take a  
> look and share their thoughts in this thread. If there is consensus  
> around the terms used in the Graph Store HTTP Protocol document,  
> that's great; otherwise, I'd like to setup a telecon between  
> interested members of this group and of the SPARQL WG to attempt to  
> reach such consensus, in order that the Recommendations produced by  
> the two groups converge on shared terminology for the concepts  
> having to do with graphs.
> thanks,
> Lee
> [1] http://www.w3.org/News/2011#entry-9095
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-sparql11-http-rdf-update-20110512/
> [3]  
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-sparql11-http-rdf-update-20110512/#terminology
Received on Monday, 16 May 2011 07:12:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:06 UTC