Re: types of "graphs"

On 05-05-2012 15:02, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> Manu's comment [1] spurred me to try show why we care about the
> difference between a g-snap and a g-box.
> Intuitively, it matters to me because when I see
>     <g>  cc:license cc:by
> I want to know what is being licensed, or when I see
>     <g>  dc:creator "John Smith"
> I want to know what I'm being told he created.
> Also, the different types have different ideas about identity; there is
> only one g-snap containing any given set of triples, so that affects the
> kind of metadata we can meaningfully apply to it.
> To explore that a little more, I made a table of properties and
> whether/how I thought they applied to the different types of things we
> sometimes call an RDF "graph":


Nice document, thanks for putting this together.

I don't really understand why the last entry in your first table can 
only be a g-snap, but that's probably because I'm not a SPARQL intimate:

   In Dataset X (Is this queriable as part of some particular SPARQL 
Dataset? A SPARQL Dataset is the abstract information against which a 
SPARQL query is executed.)

Conceptually, the properties mentioned actually do not make sense to if 
they hold *only* for g-snaps. A g-snap is an abstract notion; a g-snap 
may derive such metadata from the container(s) it is  generated from 
(cf. the two penultimate properties, i.e. creator & license).


>     -- Sandro
> [1] "I really, really don't like all of the new terminology that the group
>      is creating - having both 'graph' and 'layer' doesn't help simplify
>      this stuff to Web developers. Use a base word, like 'graph' and
>      modify it for the different types of graphs - graph snapshot,
>      graph container, etc."
>            --

Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 15:45:28 UTC