Re: [All] Proposal: RDF Graph Identification (definition of "named graph")

On 08/16/2012 01:45 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> 4. "Note that “named graph” is a relation, not a class: we say that something is a named graph of a dataset, not simply that it is a named graph."  What does this mean? Is it intended to convey the idea that the naming is local to the dataset? If not, what is it supposed to convey? Put another way, what is wrong with saying that something just is a named graph?

That text is something I wrote a while ago, trying to put forward a 
definition of the term "named graph" that was consistent with popular 
usage and also made sense to me.   Clearly I didn't express it well 
enough.   Let's see if I can do it better now, not writing in a spec.

As you may remember, the term "named graph" used to bother me a lot.   
It bothered me because:

  * when I hear "graph" I really do think of RDF Graphs (g-snaps).  I 
think most people comfortable with the term "named graph" are actually 
thinking of a g-box when they hear "graph" in this context.

  * when I think of "naming" in RDF, I think of picking an IRI for some 
entity and encouraging everyone in the world to use that same IRI for 
that same entity, like http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card#i for 
TimBL.   Often people working with "named graphs" are really just 
associating a string with the graph, in some local name-binding 
relationship.

Given those meaning, making a "named graph" would be kind of silly.   
Richard captured this beautifully by pointing out 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallery_of_named_graphs .  Those are named 
graphs, given my understanding of the words "named" and "graph" 
(although using non-RDF variants of both those terms).   I don't know 
how common my understanding here is; I do know it's shared by TimBL, so 
it's not just me.

There's also the problem that the formal definition provided by Carroll 
et al [*] and used by SPARQL is that the "named graph" is not a graph at 
all, but is rather a pair of a name and a graph. As I hear people talk, 
using the term "named graph", they don't seem to be referring to a pair. 
   I've managed to find a few cases in English that use this kind of 
construct: the weight of a clothed person is the sum of the weight of 
the clothing and the clothed person (that is, the person who happens to 
be clothed).   So, yes, a named graph can be both the pair of a name and 
a graph *and* the graph that is paired with the name.  But that seems 
really awkward.

The way I hear the term "Named Graph" used, in diverse settings 
including the SPARQL WG and intro-to-semweb classes, is as a place 
within a collection of RDF triples where some triples are set aside, 
kept somehow separate.   Someone has a bunch of triples and to help 
manage them better they subdivide the collection into "Named Graphs".   
Often, but not always, this is a mutable collection -- certain triples 
are added to certain named graphs from time to time, as circumstances 
change.

I'm pretty sure the term is always used in the context of a larger 
dataset/graphstore.   People don't refer to a single file or web page of 
RDF triples as a Named Graph.       It's my understanding that when 
people said they really wanted Named Graphs [1] [2], this is what they 
were talking about -- the ability to segment or subdivide a triplestore, 
to help with various kinds of data management, including managing 
changes and provenance.   In a sense, it might better be called a 
"subdivision", or a "named subgraph".

So, back to spec text.

    SPARQL formally defines a /named graph/, to be any of the (name,
    graph) pairs in a dataset
    <http://www.w3.org/2012/08/RDFNG.html#dfn-dataset>.

True.  And I wish we could propose a transition path to a less confusing 
terminology.    I think those things should be called "name-graph 
pairs".  Hard to change now, I know.

    In practice, the term is often used to refer to the graph part of
    those pairs. This is the usage we follow in this document, saying
    that a graph is a named graph in some dataset if and only if it
    appears as the graph part of a (name, graph) pair in that dataset. 

I'm still happy with that definition, and comfortable using the term 
"Named Graph" when defined this way.  The "graph" part is an RDF Graph.  
The name denotes some object in the normal (global) RDF way, and that 
denoted object is associated with the graph in a dataset-local 
name-graph binding pair.   Nearly all of the value of particular dataset 
is its name-graph pairs, so of course they're local.

    Note that “named graph” is a relation, not a class: we say that
    something is a named graph /of a dataset/, not simply that it is a
    named graph.


It seems to me that it's nonsense to ask whether the graph { <a> <b> 1 } 
is a named graph.    There is no class of named graphs.  Instead we'd 
have to ask whether the graph { <a> <b> 1 } is a named graph of some 
particular dataset.

Linguistically, the term "named graph" seems like the name of a class of 
things, like "red car".  But it's more like "descendant", "friend", and 
"neighbor".    If I say Joe is a descendant, ... well, that doesn't make 
much sense.  Instead, a complete sentence would have to be more like: 
Joe is a descendant of Irish Immigrants.

It's like saying "7 is a prime factor" instead of "7 is a prime factor 
of 8638".

You asked:

> What does this mean? Is it intended to convey the idea that the naming is local to the dataset? If not, what is it supposed to convey? Put another way, what is wrong with saying that something just is a named graph?

Have I answered that, now?

      -- Sandro







[*] I think I've heard both you and Jeremy express that you don't think 
we should stick to that any more.
[1] http://www.w3.org/2010/06/rdf-work-items/table
[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/rdf-2010/results



And assigning IRIs to g-snaps in a global name mapping -- the way we 
name  is kind of a silly thing, in general.

  but I eventually found an way of thinking about it that I was 
comfortable with.  I was trying to capture that, but i clearly failed to 
capture it clearly.




One of the problems with the term is that linguistically it looks a 
named graph should be a kind of graph,