- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 19:03:16 +0200
- To: "Xiaoshu Wang" <wangxiao@musc.edu>
- Cc: "Reto Bachmann-Gmür" <reto@gmuer.ch>, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org, "Semantic Web" <semantic-web@w3.org>
On 7/27/06, Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu> wrote: > Obviously our view on what a URI represent is fundmentally different. If I > had an RDF document in something like: > > <> n1:x1 n2:x2 . > n2:x2 n3:x3 n4:x4 . > n4:x4 n5:x5 ... > ... > > First, I consider all the assertions in the graph is my representation of > the resource. Not just the first statement. If I don't think they are, I > shouldn't have put it in there. Ok, fair enough. It's your choice. > Tell me what kind of Accept-Vocabulary: header request, it won't step into > the boundary of SPAQL? There is overlap with SPARQL capabilities, for sure. [resource/representation defs] > What is your point? Does anywhere says partial? Obviously, how you > interpret "Representation" is totally different from mime. Fine, the specs leave a lot of leeway. A shorter > version of the article is not a part of the article. A lower resolution of > an image is not a part of the image ... The image case is a nice one. A low-res bitmap can be generated by sampling pixels from a hi-res bitmap. What you get is a subset of the pixel data. Yet they could both be reasonably considered representations of the same resource. A photo of my cat is a photo of my cat, irrespective of the detail. Similarly a hi-res prepresentation of my FOAF profile might contain a few hundred statements. A low-res representation might only contain these: <> a foaf:PersonalProfileDocument ; foaf:primaryTopic _:me . _:me a Person . _:me foaf:mbox "mailto:danny.ayers@gmail.com" . My FOAF profile is what I identify as my FOAF profile, irrespective of the details of the representation(s). Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
Received on Thursday, 27 July 2006 17:03:29 UTC