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

>From: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>
>
[...] 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?
>

I see your point and it makes sense. But why do I need named graphs then, if 
I just reference the 'document' containing the RDF?
I suppose we have to be careful with expressions such as 'document on the 
Internet' or even 'RDF document' at times. I was thinking about URLs a while 
ago. I know that ideally a URL would reference a document. In my way of 
seeing the historical evolution, 'documents' as static content comes from 
the notion that you have static HTML pages served by some web server. 
Application servers and blogs came along to complicate this story. To assume 
'documents' are a synomym of static document on the web is to ask for 
trouble in real implementations.
  So, I'm still hoping to have named graphs referable through URLs. And I'm 
looking for examples where I can refer to different named graphs living in 
the same web page (with RDFa). Anyone?

Kind regards,
Gustavo Frederico

Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2007 14:20:01 UTC