W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > October 2011

Re: <sandro> PatHayes, can you formally define g-box for us?

From: Ian Davis <ian.davis@talis.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:52:03 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAiX05H2dsTxA_CgtU0zA-73cgEnKAG1cqjVb2PSi3OmfWPFEw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, public-rdf-wg WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>wrote:

> >> That seems wrong. “Identifies” and “denotes” are distinct mechanisms,
> but it has always been the goal to align them wherever possible. The
> phrasing above seems to explicitly require that they are different – a URI
> “identifies” one thing but “denotes” another. That's bad.
> >
> > Why is it bad if identify is not identical with denote?
> Because “identifies” is how the web works – it's the basis for virtually
> all uses of URIs outside of the narrow domain of RDF.
> As an example, it makes sense to a PUT to a graph store, but it doesn't
> make sense to PUT to a g-snap. We couldn't say “<u> :accessAllowedFor <ian>”
> without breaking RDF Semantics, for example.
Yes, you can't PUT to a g-snap because they are immutable sets. You can PUT
to a g-box and <u> can identify a g-box.

> Richard


Ian Davis, Chief Technology Officer, Talis Group Ltd.
http://www.talis.com/ | Registered in England and Wales as 5382297
Received on Thursday, 13 October 2011 11:52:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:09 UTC