W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > April 2012

Re: Meeting Results ( was Re: some GRAPHS strawpolls for today (agenda?) )

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:41:05 +0100
Message-ID: <4F986161.90906@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org

On 25/04/12 19:18, Gavin Carothers wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Richard Cyganiak<richard@cyganiak.de>  wrote:
>> On 25 Apr 2012, at 17:43, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>>> 2. Named graphs are not asserted
>>>>   "<u>  {<a>  <b>  <c>}" does not entail turtle("<a>  <b>  <c>")
>>> Agreed, with a little hesitation around the question of whether
>>> publishing a turtle document on the Web is "asserting" it.
>> This WG should go nowhere near the question whether publishing something on the Web is “asserting” it. That's something for the courts to decide.
> My question (objection) is why publishing a TriG document that says:
> <u>  {<a>  <b>  <c>}
> is some how different than publishing a Turtle document
> Location:<u>
>   <a>  <b>  <c>
> I have no idea what that has anything to do with "asserting" in the first place.

Suppose you control <u> and I control <x>

If I put a file at <x>:

  <u>  {<a>  <b>  <c>}

then it's different from you putting at <u>

<a>  <b>  <c>

The TriG

  <u>  {<a>  <b>  <c>}

at <u> needs to fit in the overall scheme of things.  A conclusion for 
an application is that that is the same but then <u> is a graph 
container because you GET from it and it might be time varying.

Or - I can move  <u>  {<a>  <b>  <c>}  in a way that isn't the same as a 
Turtle file.


>> This WG should consider the question what you can do with a piece of information once you've decided that you want to consider it asserted.
>> Best,
>> Richard
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 20:41:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:04 UTC