Re: more about dereference (notes from MIT post F2F2-day-1)

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