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

Re: Problem with auto-generated fragment IDs for graph names

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 19:13:49 +0000
Message-ID: <51227D6D.1090603@epimorphics.com>
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
CC: public-linked-json@w3.org, 'RDF-WG' <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>

On 18/02/13 18:19, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> On Monday, February 18, 2013 7:01 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>> You, JSON-LD, can add the
>> constraint that a bNode/IRI is actually referring to the graph.
> if that's not standardized across all RDF dataset syntaxes you couldn't
> transform the JSON-LD data to another syntax.

Hence my suggestion for using IRIs minted by the parser because you can 
define them to denote the graph.

You can then define the output of JSON-LD parsing that a graph label 
using one of these IRIs is denoting the graph.  owl:sameAs (except 
that's for "individuals" / "IRI").

>> (but then the graph is an abstract value - not the JSON-LD normalized
>> structure, Turtle document or any specific bytes.  1, 01, +1 and all
>> that).
> Yes, I was always talking about the abstract construct and not the bits and
> bytes on the wire.
>>> If you have the following dataset:
>>> {
>>>     _:b1 x:signature "... signature ..." .
>>> }
>>> _:b1 {
>>>     ... some triples ...
>>> }
>>> Do the two _:b1 above refer to the same, i.e., the named graph?
>> If you say they do, they do.  Ditto IRIs.
> You mean the JSON-LD specification would have to say that?
>>> RDF-CONCEPTS says:
>>>      Despite the use of the word "name" in "named graph", the
>>>      graph name does not formally denote the graph. It is merely
>>>      syntactically paired with the graph. RDF does not place
>>>      any formal restrictions on what resource the graph name may
>>>      denote, nor on the relationship between that resource and the
>>>      graph.
>>> I read this as in the example above you wouldn't know to what the
>> signature
>>> applies. It may or may not be the graph. Manu's use case requires
>> that it is
  the graph to which the signature applies. That's the reason why I
>> argued for
>>> "bNodes MUST denote the graph".
>> You can add that as a requirement for JSON-LD (and that's true for
>> bNodes or IRIs) - there is no need to make RDF adopt one position or
>> the
>> other, excluding the common current usages that we enumerated over the
>> long discussions.
> Really? Could you then still round-trip the data between different syntaxes
> without changing its semantics?

Yes, round trip from JSON-LD-X -> TriG or NQuads -> JSON-LD, (where 
JSON-LD-X is the restriction of JSON-LD to RDF+Datasets - no Bnode or 
literal properties, etc)  It's just transcoding of the abstract data 
model and is neutral to semantics in graph labelling or IRI minting.


> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
Received on Monday, 18 February 2013 19:14:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:25 UTC