W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > May 2016

Re: Named graphs as documents or fragids?

From: Timothy Cook <tim@datainsights.tech>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 08:16:35 -0300
Message-ID: <CAENjPc_ztTY5dsbJMq0=C=nPQzRYJvWk6h6OFPSzbHZecABBgA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
I am under the impression that the 4th element is used to identify a graph
in a specific persistence. It may or may not (should not?) be meaningful in
other persistence implementations regarding those same triples.

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:57 AM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>

> I've been reading through documentation on named graphs and most of the
> examples have the 4th element in a quad as a document.
> From what I understand it can also be a fragid type URI or a bnode.
> I was wondering if there were any views about using a fragid in this
> position vs a document.
> It seems to me that documents are the typical delivery method for triples
> over HTTP and I suspect this is going to play nicely with tooling, and
> things like TriG, SPARQL etc.
> The fragid as the 4th element in the quad seems fascinating to me too.  In
> my head it means "this URI is asserting these triples", which I think is a
> very interesting part of the open world assumption.
> My question is would using a fragid in this position be in danger of
> breaking compatibility with parts of the semantic web, libraries, tooling,
> spec etc.
> ( My planned implementation would be delivering a bunch of triples from
> database over an API or SPARQL )

Timothy W. Cook, President
Data Insights, Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 24 May 2016 14:49:04 UTC

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