W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > December 2007

Re: Named RDF Graphs - A Warning

From: Manos Batsis <manos_lists@geekologue.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:47:23 +0200
Message-ID: <4767DD7B.7050704@geekologue.com>
To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@miscoranda.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>

Sean B. Palmer wrote:
> This isn't so bad with namespaces, but I think it will be for graphs.

Not so bad? Let's hope the XML-DEV people will miss that quote :-)

> People will start using using HTTP URIs that return a 200 to identify
> RDF Graphs, whereas RDF Graphs are disjoint with information
> resources. 

This may not be true in a "closed" system (same as RDF URIs in general I 
believe). Agreed, @rdf:graph should consider URIs to be just identifiers 
but, similarly to other URI usecases, interpreting 
graph_identifying_URIs as locators can be a design decision in the 
context of a specific system.

Other than that and although I am rather unqualified as a mere mortal to 
say so, @rdf:graph is probably not enough for URIs to be widely used as 
locators more openly. This locator VS identifier thing with most things 
W3C is what makes life hard for us plain folks out there though.

A solution could involve more info on the resource depending on the 
problem one sees with the approach, including format, availability, 
security etc, but that info may not be available.  Another solution 
would be the employment of URIQA [1] or anything that simply extends the 
WWW architecture. BTW I find the CBD [2] concept (used in URIQA) 
extremely relevant for, errr.. locator URIs. The benefit of using 
something like URIQA is that it would quickly become transparent 
mortals. Using metadata for the graph would simply adds to the 
complexity for anyone with practical purposes IMHO.

[1] http://sw.nokia.com/uriqa/URIQA.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/Submission/CBD/


Received on Tuesday, 18 December 2007 14:57:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:04 UTC