Re: complete graphs

On Fri, 2011-09-30 at 15:04 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> 
> On 30/09/11 13:59, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> > On 9/30/2011 8:44 AM, Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider wrote:
> >> From: Sandro Hawke<sandro@w3.org>
> >> Subject: Re: complete graphs
> >> Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 07:31:26 -0500
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>> The restriction on the fourth column is that the fourth column is the
> >>> web address of a place (a g-box) currently serving that triple.
> >>> (That's the architecture I'm arguing for in this morning's post to
> >>> public-rdf-prov [1].)
> >>
> >> You are going to build this into the formal meaning of RDF?
> >> That's a non-starter for me.
> >
> > If I understand it correctly, I think it's a non-starter for me as well.
> > This would prohibit non-HTTP URIs from being used to as the 4th element
> > in a quad (i.e. as the identifier of a named graph)?
> >
> > Lee
> 
> I understood Sandro's remark coming out of the discussion about 
> provenance on the web and so I took generalising to any URI scheme for 
> other situations as read.

Right.   More formally, I'd say the fourth column is the identifier (IRI
or BNode) of an Information Resource which MAY provide representations.
If it does provide representations, it SHOULD provide an RDF
representation (a g-text).   If you want to use a non-dereferenceable
IRI scheme like uuid or tag, that's not good Linked Data but it's fine
RDF.  Informally, the fourth column entry denotes a g-box, but I'm not
convinced g-boxes should be formalized.

What's also not clear to me is how to connect that g-text to the triple,
formally.  Informally, the triple "should" be in the g-text.  But who is
that "SHOULD" on -- the server of the triple, or the server of the quad?
Maybe this will become clear with some more worked examples...

    - Sandro

>  Andy
> 
> >
> >>
> >>> The issue about completeness is that if I want to say, as in [1], that I
> >>> agree or disagree with a statement (or otherwise build on it), it's
> >>> important the readers see the whole statement (or know that they are
> >>> seeing only a partial statement). It's even more important for me to
> >>> know if I'm seeing the whole statement before I say if I agree.
> >>
> >> Please, let's try to be more precise. In particular, there is
> >> rdf:Statement, so "statement" is something that has to be carefully
> >> used.
> >>
> >>> -- Sandro
> >>>
> >>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-prov/2011Sep/0023
> >>
> >>
> >> peter
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
>

Received on Friday, 30 September 2011 18:46:43 UTC