- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:00:40 +0000
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- CC: RDF-WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 10/11/11 18:20, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > Andy, > > Summary: We're actually saying the same thing. > > On 10 Nov 2011, at 14:51, Andy Seaborne wrote: >>> 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. >> >> It makes more sense (to me at least) to fix the second part as naming the the graph value. > > It actually works out exactly the same. It's really like this (pardon the ASCII art): > > :g ----xxx----> {ggg} > | | > denotes denotes > | | > v v > thing ---yyy---> graph Good art - I can cope with morphism diagrams. (Brings back memories of my Riemann Surfaces course.) The difference is that yyy isn't a property. We are agreed (I think) that one step is fixed. If we have owl:sameAs at the denotes step: :g --xxx--> X --owl:sameAs--> graph vs: :g --owl:sameAs--> Y --zzz--> graph and xxx and zzz are properties. > The upper half of the picture is in the space of syntax, the lower half is in the space of values. > > Starting at the graph IRI :g, your version goes right-then-down. The implicit X in this case is really a graph literal (it denotes the graph). Hence I write it as {ggg}. > > Starting at the graph IRI :g, my version goes down-then-right. The implicit X in this case is really the thing that is actually denoted by the graph IRI. Hence I write it as “thing”. > > Now, xxx and yyy are the same relationship – only that one is in syntax land, and one in value land. Xxx is a name for the relationship, and yyy is the actual relationship. Xxx denotes yyy. > > If you think about the syntax of TriG files, then it makes sense to imagine some URI xxx between the<http://graphIRI> and the {graph literal}. If you think about the semantic relationship between the referent of<http://graphIRI> and the actual graph (set of triples), then that's yyy. I understood you (orginally) to be saying X --???--> {graph} is a property. > >> I have an action to write some short use cases but these previosu messages do fit the model as I think of it: > > Looking forward to the writeup. > > Richard > > > >> >> 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 Friday, 11 November 2011 14:01:05 UTC