- From: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 10:37:01 +0000
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, "yves.igetenoughspam.raimond@gmail.com" <yves.igetenoughspam.raimond@gmail.com>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Hello Pat, First of all, many thanks for the comments - we'll go through them in more details in the coming days. I just had one question about the following: [snip] > "We can then make statements about these two graphs, for example adding license and provenance information: > > <http://example.com/bob> <is published by> <http://example.org>. > <http://example.com/bob> <has license> <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/>." > > <hair tearing> AAAARRRRGGGH</hair tearing> NO WE CAN'T. Or at least, this use is NOT SUPPORTED BY RDF with the specs in their current state. That 'metadata' use works ONLY when we know that the "identifying" graph IRIs denote their graphs, and WE HAVE EXPLICITLY SAID THAT RDF DOES NOT ASSUME THIS. A conforming RDF engine would be perfectly conforming if it refused to treat those subject IRIs as denoting the graph in these triples. There is NOTHING in the RDF specs that say that a general IRI must be taken to denote what it conventionally identifies. We do this only for datatype IRIs, and even getting that much into the specs was an uphill struggle; and in the case of graph labels in a dataset, we explicitly warn people to not expect this to be true (because it often isn't.) I know the Primer has to be simple, but please let us not put actual lies into it. > "RDF does not assume this" doesn't mean that RDF explicitly forbids it, no? I thought that we deliberately left that open for people to use graph IRIs as they see fit. If it's an 'actual lie' (which I really don't think it is), then it's a bit of an issue, as a lot of people use graphs to do exactly that. Best, Yves ----------------------------- http://www.bbc.co.uk This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. -----------------------------
Received on Monday, 25 November 2013 10:37:45 UTC