Re: Comments on "SPARQL 1.1 Uniform HTTP Protocol for Managing RDF Graphs"

On Friday 18. March 2011 22:45:33 David Booth wrote:
> 2. Because this kind of ambiguity of reference is inescapable (though
> the example is an extreme case), so we have no choice but to learn to
> deal with it.  

So, what you're saying is "relax, whether it is an RDF Graph or an RDF 
Document is not important to specify, ambiguity is inescapable and can be 

I can see that point, and I appreciate the arguments that you make. However, 
it still seems that accepting this means accepting what webarch calls a URI 

Also, I very much appreciate Sandro's clean sheet terminology. This new 
terminology is unfortunately not currently available as normative reference, 
and for such a simple protocol as we currently discuss, I feel that we should 
be able to specify it clearly enough for all practical purposes without.

There are two points that I feel has not been answered yet, and that's whether 
the apparent conflict that I think I see between the usages of RDF Document and 
RDF Graph are real, is the ambiguity real? And if so would a URI collision be 

Whatever may be the case, I think that a discussion of these muddy waters does 
not belong in the specification in question. This is something that could be 
implemented by thousands of developers, and we need to make sure we do not 
scare anyone away (as hard as that may be).


Kjetil Kjernsmo
Ph.d. Student, Semantic Web

Received on Sunday, 20 March 2011 20:36:41 UTC