- From: Ian Davis <ian.davis@talis.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 08:50:27 +0100
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: public-rdf-wg WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAAiX05Gn7Ew0s=VM7ZvePZPT4jW2qmWGZ0hyEsrUS9MnKcGr6w@mail.gmail.com>
On 13 Oct 2011 05:32, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: > > REST defines a resource as a function from times to representations. So, a g-box is a resource whose representations are (a recognized interchange syntactic form of) g-snaps, ie RDF graphs. > > Will that do? Yes. The entities in the representations are g-texts that serialize g-snaps. > > That then has the nice feature that it is 'natural' to say that IRIs relate to g-boxes via HTTP GET and PUT, according to the standard Web architectural principles; but it is also natural to say that IRIs relate to graphs by naming, ie by reference. So we have two parallel worlds: > > IRI----HTTP/"identifies" ---- g-box > IRI----denotes/names-----g-snap > > and we can state as a semantic rule that when the first one works, the second one has to conform to it. So if your http IRI GETs something that parses to a graph, then the IRI refers to/denotes that graph. Which all has a nice http-range-14-ish flavor to it :-) This is a very interesting formulation of the web architecture. More generally one might say "when an IRI identifies a resource that IRI then also denotes the state of the resource" > > Pat > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 > 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office > Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax > FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile > phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes > > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 13 October 2011 07:51:05 UTC