Re: contexts, graph names and so on

• From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
• Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 18:38:12 +0000
• To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
• Cc: RDF-WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
• Message-Id: <0517B0F2-BB39-4A99-817B-940F35A94C39@cyganiak.de>

Andy,

On 3 Nov 2011, at 16:23, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> Indirection:
> 
> :g { :s :p :o }
> 
> :g ---> X ---> graph
> 
> :g is related to something and something is related to the graph
> 
> X can be the graph name, and the X--->graph is "denotes"
> 
> ":g ---> X" is the step from 4th slot to graph name. Call this g2x; it's a property; it is different for different RDF datasets.

So you're saying:

   :g --???--> X --denotes--> graph

and there should be some way of stating what relation --???--> is for a particular dataset.

Wouldn't it make more sense to say:

   :g --denotes--> X --???--> graph

because :g is an IRI and as such probably is supposed to denote something already. Then some obvious choices for --???--> would be sameAs, hasRepresentation, and hasPrimaryTopic.

Best,
Richard

Received on Wednesday, 9 November 2011 18:38:51 UTC