W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > October 2011

Re: why I don't like named graph IRIs in the DATASET proposal

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 01:10:51 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFNgM+aGT6KkHJF32_7Ci6k87sBX_JWBiE5_H_s8a0DpWUL_+g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>, "public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 30 September 2011 21:11, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-09-30 at 12:02 +0200, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>> > (imagine for example a owl:sameAs statement between two graphs IRI
>> in a
>> > SPARQL engine supporting OWL inference; what would that mean?)
>> owl:sameAs means that two terms denote the same resource. As written
>> in the ED, use of those terms as graph names is entirely orthogonal to
>> that.
>> I think that's a good thing. Named graphs are key to trust and
>> provenance. Trust and provenance must happen at a lower level in the
>> stack, before reasoning and inference kick in. W3C's version of the
>> layer cake, where trust sits above reasoning, cannot work. The moment
>> you reason with OWL over untrusted data, you [have problems].
> I don't think we need to throw out reasoning on the fourth column.  As
> long as we're careful about what it means -- eg: it denotes an IR which
> may give you a Graph

What's an IR? Is a book an IR? Do we define IR in a W3C RDF REC, or by
reference to some other?

Is http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#id-resources the best candidate on offer?

Received on Saturday, 1 October 2011 23:11:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:09 UTC