- From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 23:29:36 +0200
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- CC: <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 09-05-2012 22:52, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > On 9 May 2012, at 17:17, Guus Schreiber wrote: >> if people say something in RDF it is always in some box/space (in 2004-terms: the global box/space). So, people never create/store/query g-snaps, only containers (and transferring/storing them through some g-text). G-snaps just provide us with a mathematical view that allows us to reason with the contents of containers. This means we only need to provide mechanisms for typing g-boxes. Containers are by default dynamic, but for pragmatic reasons we might want to have a mechanism to say we consider a g-box to be frozen (which essentially is only a social contract). > > This sounds very sensible to me. > >> Ergo: we only need a type for a frozen g-box in our spec. > > Why do *we* need to define the term for a frozen g-box? Why not leave it to the community? Sloppy phrasing on my part. I meant to say: this line of reasoning implies there is a need for at most one type. With my chair hat on I prefer not to take a position whether we should predefine it or not. I only note that such the "frozen-box" type arose from our use cases. Guus > > Best, > Richard
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 21:30:07 UTC