- 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