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

RE: statements about a graph (Named Graphs, reification)

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 13:02:26 +0200
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A037459A@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Richard Cyganiak" <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: "K-fe bom" <u9x3n_15so@hotmail.com>, <semantic-web@w3.org>

>-----Original Message-----
>From: semantic-web-request@w3.org 
>[mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Richard Cyganiak
>Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 9:53 AM
>To: K-fe bom
>Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
>Subject: Re: statements about a graph (Named Graphs, reification)
>On 3 Sep 2007, at 16:31, K-fe bom wrote:
>> I'm looking for the best way to model certain statements about  
>> statements. I find that Named Graphs are part of what I need, since  
>> I was really looking for a way to refer to a whole set of RDF  
>> statements as a unit.
>>   More specifically I'm looking for comments and examples of how to  
>> make statements about a Named Graph, ideally all living in a RDFa  
>> document.
>I find that making statements about the URI of the document (in your  
>case, the HTML page containing the RDFa) works for me. It isn't  
>technically *quite* the same as annotating the named graph, but often  
>I find it actually more appropriate to make statements about the  
>document, not the graph.

Looks quite reasonable to me, seen from a pragmatical point of view
(although I have seen people here in the past insisting pretty rigidly on
the distinction between abstract graphs and their serializations into RDF
documents. :))

But what I am unclear about is, what has this approach to do with the
NamedGraphs idea? AFAICS, what you suggest here is just of the form: "Take
some URI, and interprete it in a way that it denotes some RDF graph, and
then start to make assertions about this resource in the form of RDF
triples." This happily maps into the current RDF framework and its model
theoretic semantics. And in practice, if I find in the SemWeb an RDF
description about some URI, which turns out to be an URL of some RDF
document, than it looks pretty natural to me that the given RDF description
is a description of at least this RDF document. And from this, it is not a
big step to regard the RDF description to be a description of the RDF graph
represented by that RDF document. So, it looks to me that I can go pretty
well with this approach in existing RDF, without introducing some notion of
a NamedGraph into the RDF framework. Or did I overlook something?


Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik Karlsruhe
Abtl. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
Email: Michael.Schneider@fzi.de
Web  : http://www.fzi.de/ipe/eng/mitarbeiter.php?id=555

FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Az: 14-0563.1 Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe
Vorstand: Rüdiger Dillmann, Michael Flor, Jivka Ovtcharova, Rudi Studer
Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2007 11:02:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:02 UTC