Re: types of "graphs"

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.


> Best,
> Richard

Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 21:30:07 UTC