- From: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:31:59 -0400
- To: <sandro@w3.org>
- CC: <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> Subject: more about dereference (notes from MIT post F2F2-day-1) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:04:10 -0500 > Some of us kept talking for a few more hours. Everyone was > more-or-less cool with these observations about dereference: > > 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 appears to conflate web documents and information resources, which may not be the best approach. > 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.) This may not be the best modelling philosophy. > 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 cringe about putting time into such a basic level of RDF. > 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. Maybe. peter
Received on Thursday, 13 October 2011 11:33:03 UTC