- From: Ian Davis <ian.davis@talis.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 15:04:32 +0100
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Received on Friday, 7 October 2011 14:05:10 UTC
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>wrote: > > > The relationship between <u,G> in a named graph shouldn't be “dereferencing > u yields G”. It should be “owner of u gets to say what's in G”, which > already *is* the case per AWWW, so we don't actually need to say anything > about that when specifying <u,G>. > > So there _is_ a relationship between u and G in your opinion? It's quite a strong one too because it would preclude scenarios that have been discussed in this WG before such as using http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person as the name for a graph containing data about people. What would it mean if I took a dump of dbpedia and started modifying the contents of the http://dbpedia.org named graph? Should I really assign a new name that is under my control? Ian -- Ian Davis, Chief Technology Officer, Talis Group Ltd. http://www.talis.com/ | Registered in England and Wales as 5382297
Received on Friday, 7 October 2011 14:05:10 UTC