- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:16:33 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: public-rdf-wg <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 12 Oct 2011, at 22:04, Sandro Hawke wrote: > 1. If a system successfully dereferences URL "L" and obtains a > representation of an RDF graph, then <L> is a GraphContainer. That > is, "L" denotes a GraphContainer. Logically, GraphContainer is > disjoint from foaf:Person (I think!!) so a document that includes "<> > a foaf:Person" is (by this proposal) logically inconsistent with it > being served on the Web. This seems a logical consequence from httpRange-14. > 2. So, owl:Ontology heavily overlaps GraphContainer. It might even be > a subclass of it. (Many OWL ontologies say "<> a owl:Ontology", where > the <> will be resolved to the address the ontologies is fetched from, > aka L.) Well, sort of. They are orthogonal by definition, but overlap in practice because it can be useful to treat owl:Ontologies as graph containers. > 3. Some GraphContainers, "SerialGraphContainers" are functions mapping > from time to RDF Graphs. We can talk about next & previous & current > RDF Graphs in a SerialGraphContainer, but not about GraphContainers in > general. (cf facebook's api for fetching RDF data, which returns > different RDF data depending on your credentials). I don't understand that. If graph containers are mutable, then doesn't that already mean they are functions mapping from time to RDF graphs? > 4. A ConstantGraphContainer always holds the same RDF Graph. This can > be used for when you want to attach a dereferenceable URL to a g-snap. > You put it in a ConstantGraphContainer. Seems reasonable. Richard
Received on Thursday, 13 October 2011 11:17:05 UTC