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

Re: Graph labels vs. graph names. (was: Re: complete graphs)

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 12:57:36 -0400
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1317833856.6904.34.camel@waldron>
On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 17:43 +0100, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> > It seems to me the variation here is an impediment to
> interoperability.
> > If my code talks to a new sparql server, and doesn't know which of
> these
> > conventions is being used, how can it do its job?  
> It might ask the store for graphs that fulfil certain criteria.
> Or there might be a SPARQL Service Description document that explains
> what's in the graphs.

Those would probably work in the SPARQL world, but I'm thinking of
SPARQL as just an interactive pseudo-TriG document.

Yes, the document could have a nearby document which tells you how to
interpret it.   But that sounds pretty awkward to me.

Do we have a licensing use case?    

TimBL's foaf file contains:

 <> cc:license <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/>

It'd be nice to have that kind of thing survive in some usable way
through being fetched and passed on.    Here, it's important that the
subject and the fourth-column are the same.

     -- Sandro
Received on Wednesday, 5 October 2011 16:57:48 UTC

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