- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 14:48:38 +0200
- To: <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Sunday, July 07, 2013 1:35 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> It's not that the name doesn't denote the graph, it's that it doesn't
> *necessarily* denote the graph. Eric's example will work fine in a
> context where suitable dataset semantics are in use.
Right. It is exactly that ambiguity that worries me.
> Earlier, I gave the
> example that this could be flagged by having the triple { <> a
> rdf:BoundDataset } in the default graph. Another name for that might be
> "Direct".
A more granular alternative would be to define rdf:Graph which could be used
to type things as "denoting graph name".
> In contrast, we might also have a WebCacheDataset, or WebViewDataset, or
> GraphStoreSnapshot, in which the graph names denote g-boxes whose
> contents are the associated graphs. (Change-over-time here is a problem,
> but it's the same problem we have throughout the RDF world.)
>
> Now that we have blank node graph names available, I'm thinking the most
> popular dataset semantics will be a combination: for URLs, the
> graph-name denotes the g-box; for blank nodes, the graph-name denotes
> the graph.
+1, yet we make it more complicated than necessary to express those
semantics IMO
> I'm not sure which way to treat genids - it depends if we
> want the genid-creator to be obligated/encouraged to publish the graph
> at the genid URL.
>
> But this is too speculative to put into a document that's slated to
> become a REC by the end of the year. So instead, dataset semantics are
> an extensibility point, and we can experiment for a while.
... probably leading to interoperability problems till we feel ready to make
a decision at which point it probably is too late as we can't modify the
semantics of existing data anymore.
Sorry for being so negative but I think we are making a huge mistake here.
--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Sunday, 7 July 2013 12:49:09 UTC