W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > September 2013

Re: The Movie of the Book: Re: defn of Named Graph

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 14:15:24 -0400
Message-ID: <5241D6BC.70306@w3.org>
To: Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>
CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Gregg Reynolds <dev@mobileink.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On 09/24/2013 01:07 PM, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
>
> On Sep 24, 2013, at 6:31 AM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org 
> <mailto:sandro@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>> I'm now confident that you and I (and Jeremy) agree the problem we're 
>> trying to solve in this thread is this: people seem to want to have 
>> different properties on one "graph" than on another, even when the 
>> "graphs" happen to have the same triples.
>
>
> I am sorry, I actually don't agree.
>
> The phrase '''even when the "graphs" happen to have the same 
> triples.''' indicates that any actual example is likely to be 
> contrived and artificial.
> The point about these contrived and artificial examples is that they 
> demonstrate that my use cases for graph naming (i.e. the use cases 
> that matter to me) tend to be about referring to the graph as a 
> representation of a resource, where there is one step of remove.
>
>
> To totally abuse RDF we might agree a new mechanism for publishing novels.
> A novel might be published as a single triple RDF graph with a blank 
> subject, predicate being rdf:value and the object being the text of 
> the novel.
>
> The participants of this thread might each independently come up with 
> the following earth-shattering great novel
>
> [ rdf:value
> """Once upon a time, there was a consortium, which agreed on a 
> semantics for graph naming. And they all lived happily ever after. The 
> END!"""
> ].
>
> And once the movie of the book  grosses many millions, we all end up 
> in court, arguing over who wrote the novel - contradicting the 
> penultimate sentence.
>
> Sandro produces his dataset with
>
> eg:Sandro dc:creator "Sandro Hawke".
>
> eg:Sandro [ rdf:value
> """Once upon a time, there was a consortium, which agreed on a 
> semantics for graph naming. And they all lived happily ever after. The 
> END!"""
> ].
>
>
> I produce mine with
>
>
> eg:Jeremy dc:creator "Jeremy Carroll".
>
> eg:Jeremy [ rdf:value
> """Once upon a time, there was a consortium, which agreed on a 
> semantics for graph naming. And they all lived happily ever after. The 
> END!"""
> ].
>
>
> etc., so that the court is presented with a merge of datasets:
>
> eg:Jeremy dc:creator "Jeremy Carroll".
> eg:Sandro dc:creator "Sandro Hawke".
> eg:Dan dc:creator "Dan Brickley".
> eg:Pat dc:creator "Pat Hayes".
> eg:Gregg dc:creator "Gregg Reynolds".
>
> eg:Jeremy [ rdf:value
> """Once upon a time, there was a consortium, which agreed on a 
> semantics for graph naming. And they all lived happily ever after. The 
> END!"""
> ].
>
> eg:Sandro [ rdf:value
> """Once upon a time, there was a consortium, which agreed on a 
> semantics for graph naming. And they all lived happily ever after. The 
> END!"""
> ].
>
> eg:Pat [ rdf:value
> """Once upon a time, there was a consortium, which agreed on a 
> semantics for graph naming. And they all lived happily ever after. The 
> END!"""
> ].
>
> eg:Gregg [ rdf:value
> """Once upon a time, there was a consortium, which agreed on a 
> semantics for graph naming. And they all lived happily ever after. The 
> END!"""
> ].
>
> eg:Dan [ rdf:value
> """Once upon a time, there was a consortium, which agreed on a 
> semantics for graph naming. And they all lived happily ever after. The 
> END!"""
> ].
>
> ====
>
> I really don't think there is any contradiction here, even if 
> dc:creator is a functional property.
> The court would have to fall back onto precedence, and I would produce 
> this e-mail from www-archive and win the case!
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2013Sep/0053.html
>
> ====
>
> My point with this example is that the identity condition that Sandro 
> is asking for is contrived;

I'm confused, since the point I was trying to make is that the identity 
conditions are contrived (ie lack real use cases) unless we bring in 
change-over-time.

> but my use case is of a publishing system where the data being 
> published is in the form of an RDF graph, and there is metadata is 
> data about that graph - but not really stuff about the graph itself 
> but more about the pair - the naming of the graph.
>

So let's go back to that.    Give me an example that shows three things: 
the triples happen to be the same, the metadata must remain distinct, 
and there is no change over time.    As I think about it now, I'm 
beginning to think it's impossible.

       -- Sandro

> Jeremy
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 24 September 2013 18:15:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:44:23 UTC