- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:51:42 +0000
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- CC: RDF-WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 09/11/11 18:38, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> 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
It makes more sense (to me at least) to fix the second part as naming
the the graph value.
X names the graph (graph value).
owl:sameAs could be used in "X --???--> graph".
The common use case of using the grapgh container location as the 4th
slot is "hasRepresentation" would be in the ":g ---> X" step.
:location :hasRepresentation value .
":g --denotes--> X" happens just by using :g.
I have an action to write some short use cases but these previosu
messages do fit the model as I think of it:
Subject: The "Rolling Snapshots" Pattern and Vocabulary
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Oct/0152.html
Sandro
Subject: Time-varying g-boxes : a dataset pattern
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Oct/0148.html
Andy
Andy
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 14:52:18 UTC