- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2011 17:09:20 +0100
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 30/09/11 19:46, Sandro Hawke wrote: > On Fri, 2011-09-30 at 15:04 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> >> On 30/09/11 13:59, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: >>> On 9/30/2011 8:44 AM, Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider wrote: >>>> From: Sandro Hawke<sandro@w3.org> >>>> Subject: Re: complete graphs >>>> Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 07:31:26 -0500 >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>>> The restriction on the fourth column is that the fourth column is the >>>>> web address of a place (a g-box) currently serving that triple. >>>>> (That's the architecture I'm arguing for in this morning's post to >>>>> public-rdf-prov [1].) >>>> >>>> You are going to build this into the formal meaning of RDF? >>>> That's a non-starter for me. >>> >>> If I understand it correctly, I think it's a non-starter for me as well. >>> This would prohibit non-HTTP URIs from being used to as the 4th element >>> in a quad (i.e. as the identifier of a named graph)? >>> >>> Lee >> >> I understood Sandro's remark coming out of the discussion about >> provenance on the web and so I took generalising to any URI scheme for >> other situations as read. > > Right. More formally, I'd say the fourth column is the identifier (IRI > or BNode) of an Information Resource which MAY provide representations. > If it does provide representations, it SHOULD provide an RDF > representation (a g-text). If you want to use a non-dereferenceable > IRI scheme like uuid or tag, that's not good Linked Data but it's fine > RDF. Informally, the fourth column entry denotes a g-box, but I'm not > convinced g-boxes should be formalized. BNode? Such a bNode is outside any graph so how does its semantics work? (I'm not saying it does not work - but I don't see how it would.) RDF-MT : sec 1.5 http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#unlabel If we allow bNodes, at least it forces the decision on bNode label scope in a multigraph format to be "document", but that, IMHO, is the better choice anyway. > - Sandro > >> Andy >> >>> >>>> >>>>> The issue about completeness is that if I want to say, as in [1], that I >>>>> agree or disagree with a statement (or otherwise build on it), it's >>>>> important the readers see the whole statement (or know that they are >>>>> seeing only a partial statement). It's even more important for me to >>>>> know if I'm seeing the whole statement before I say if I agree. >>>> >>>> Please, let's try to be more precise. In particular, there is >>>> rdf:Statement, so "statement" is something that has to be carefully >>>> used. >>>> >>>>> -- Sandro >>>>> >>>>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-prov/2011Sep/0023 >>>> >>>> >>>> peter >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > > >
Received on Saturday, 1 October 2011 16:09:51 UTC