W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > December 2013

Re: multiple-graph example in the Primner

From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 21:44:04 +0100
Message-ID: <52A0E594.6040001@vu.nl>
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, 'RDF WG' <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>


On 05-12-13 21:06, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> On Thursday, December 05, 2013 11:54 AM, Guus Schreiber wrote:
>> In the telecon yesterday there were some flames about the graph
>> metadata examples in the Primer.
>>
> [...]
>>
>> [[
>> We can write down triples that include a graph name, for example:
>>
>>     <http://example.org/bob> <is published by> <http://example.org>.
>>     <http://example.org/bob> <has license>
>>         <http://creativecommons.org/licenses /by/3.0/>.
>>
>> These two triples could be interpreted as license and provenance
>> information of the graph http://example.org/bob.
>
> What if we just drop this part. There are still two named graphs in the
> example but we don't make any statements about the graphs (because we can't
> in an interoperable way). The
>
>> NOTE
>> RDF does not define the way in which the graph name and the graph are
>> related. It is therefore up to application developers to decide how to
>> interpret such triples.
>> ]]
>
> Could stay in the document or be augmented by, e.g., saying that "
> http://example.org/bob" in the triple
>
>    <http://example.org/bob> <is published by> <http://example.org> .
>
> does not refer to the graph without out-of-band knowledge indicating it.

Thanks for the suggestion but that doesn't work. It would mean there is 
only a *negative* statement in there. To repeat: there should be a 
triple in the Primer in which a graph name appears.

Guus

>
> The examples in section 5.2 (and the figure there) and appendix C would of
> course have to be updated accordingly.
>
>
> IMO that would be the most uncontroversial way forward. Thoughts?
>
>
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
>
>
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2013 20:44:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:36 UTC