Re: Web Semantics for Datasets

On 7 Oct 2011, at 15:04, Ian Davis 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?

Quoting AWWW:

[[
URI ownership is a relation between a URI and a social entity, such as a person, organization, or specification. URI ownership gives the relevant social entity certain rights, including:

	• to pass on ownership of some or all owned URIs to another owner—delegation; and
	• to associate a resource with an owned URI—URI allocation.
]]

… etc etc

http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-assignment

I find that account reasonable for <u,G>. As I said, I don't think this should be normative in the definition.

> 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.

Personally, I think doing that is not a very good idea, especially if you expose this graph name to the public.

I'm ok with stating that informatively in the specs.

I think it's important that things like inference over the individual graphs still work even when people do it.

I strongly believe that we shouldn't normatively forbid it, as that would outlaw deployed practice and it would disagree with SPARQL.

> 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?

Yes, you should rename the graph, as a matter of good practice. But even if you don't, SPARQL and inference and whatever should still work and you shouldn't be in violation of any normative spec.

Best,
Richard

Received on Friday, 7 October 2011 15:02:39 UTC