W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > March 2004

Re: Starting the document

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 12:34:57 +0200
Message-Id: <67B432C3-766C-11D8-A711-000A95EAFCEA@nokia.com>
Cc: chris@bizer.de, phayes@ihmc.us, www-archive@w3.org
To: "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

Just a few initial comments:


Firstly, feel free to keep my name last.


Note that I am no longer at Nokia Research Center. Just put 'Nokia'.


"It is not possible to use ... a URIref which is not a URL [as the name 
of a graph]".

I don't see the necessity for this constraint. The distinction between
a URI and URL is one of perspective and application. A URI which may not
today resolve to any representations may do so tomorrow. Hence, what is
or is not a URL should have no affect on the suitability of any URI to
name a graph.

I'm also not (yet) convinced that a blank node can't denote a graph,
but I'm OK with saying that it can't, since explicit URIs will have
IMO important significance in the signing/authentication process.


Can we use the term URI and avoid the use of the term URL entirely?
(which is, in any case, considered a best practice to do so)


We could add a subsection in section 6 to explicitly address
termination of assertion/trust chains via some extra-RDF
bootstrapping mechanism, whether we introduce one or not.


Do we want to cover the query language, or address that in some
separate/future paper -- i.e. is the query language needed in order
to describe/demonstrate the key points of the paper?


On Mar 15, 2004, at 10:55, ext Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> Here is the beginnings of a doc - there is a 15 page limit, so I think 
> we
> should a) provisionally decide whether we wish to cover the topics 
> indicated
> b) flesh more of them out. I guess we need to be concise - e.g. the 
> abstract
> syntax section is not too short in my view. (We could cut the 
> isomorphism
> discussion ...)
> I have tried to use many files, to enable independent working without 
> too much
> change control. I am going to try and get some of the work we have 
> done on
> trust and affirmation and pki and publishing written up today. 
> Probably a
> methodology of just announcing what you are working on will enable a
> light-weight locking process. I am happy to co-ordinate merges.
> Hmmm, doing the vocab summary soon might be a very useful thing - it's 
> the
> essence of the information model. Probably just doing that in e-mail 
> is good
> e.g.
> Classes
> rdfx:Graph
> "An RDF graph, intensional semantics?"
> Properties
> rdfx:equivalentGraph - Dom: rdfx:Graph - Rng: rdfx:Graph
> "The two graphs are equivalent as defined by RDF Concepts."
> rdfx:subGraphOf - Dom: rdfx:Graph - Rng: rdfx:Graph
> "The subject graph is equivalent to a subset of the object graph"
> I am hoping the query language and provenance stuff is more or less 
> covered by
> work that Chris has already done, or from the TriX paper.
> Once we have most of it in place we can guage whether we can fit more 
> in, we
> seem to have lots in the e-mail log, and/or whether we need to prune 
> what
> we've got.
> Jeremy
> <ng.tgz><ng.pdf>


Patrick Stickler
Nokia, Finland
Received on Monday, 15 March 2004 05:35:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:32:25 UTC