W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > February 2004

RE: Graph naming?

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 07:11:55 +0200
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B02A2E97E@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>
Cc: <alberto@asemantics.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

This is a key question. True. But one that, I think, can have a simple answer.

Insofar as TriX is concerned, I myself see graph naming as just that. It
is giving a name to a graph. How one chooses to use that name to
say additional things about the graph, such as about the source of the
graph, or the context of the graph, or the authority of the graph, or its
relation to other graphs, or whatever must be done using explicit 
statements about that graph and is not in any way implicit in the fact
that the graph has been given a name.
A graph is simply a resource, and naming the graph is simply naming
that resource so we can say things about it. Naming a graph is not the
same thing as associating a context for the graph. It's just a name. A
context will have its own name, and when both the graph and context
have names, you can relate them if you like.

So to that extent (and Jeremy is free to disagree) being able to name
graphs in TriX doesn't in-and-of-itself create any problems, semantic
or otherwise. It simply provides the hooks via which folks can get
themselves into however much trouble they like.



-----Original Message-----
From:	www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org on behalf of ext Dave Beckett
Sent:	Wed 2004-02-25 13:04
To:	Eric Jain
Cc:	Alberto Reggiori; rdf-interest
Subject:	Re: Graph naming?

 The question of "what does naming a
graph/subgraph mean?" seems the first and most important thing to answer.


Received on Thursday, 26 February 2004 00:12:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:48 UTC