RE: Starting the document

This is an editorial problem, I will try and make the text clearer:

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

This is only meant to refer to serializing named graphs by using RDF/XML on
the web ... with the convention that the name is the retrieval URL - it
can't be an arbitrary URI because there is no retrieval algorithm - it is
not meant to prevent graph names being blank nodes.


>
> 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)
>

I try to use URL when I am specifical meaning a URI with a built-in GET,
which I think is OK? (Perhaps you could educate me - briefly)


> --
>
> 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.
>

We certainly need to address the termination of the bootstrap ... I am going
to try and pick things off the thread.

> --
>
> 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?
>
>

Chris's earlier document

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Feb/att-0072/swig-bizer-
carroll

seemed to me to introduce the query language in about 1 paragraph + 1
example, and then save that space over by using the query language in the
later examples. I don't think we should overcommit to it - e.g. indicate it
as only for the examples and motivate it as a minor extension to RDQL.

I certainly don't think we have enough space to do anything more on query,
and it is not crucial, but I felt that swig-bizer-carroll flowed better
because of this part.

Jeremy

Received on Monday, 15 March 2004 07:32:10 UTC