- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:09:54 -0400
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Aug 14, 2008, at 9:24 AM, Dan Connolly wrote: > On Thu, 2008-08-14 at 00:27 -0400, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: >> On Aug 14, 2008, at 12:11 AM, Dan Connolly wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 19:17 -0400, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: >>>> Does this mean that the IRI following the GRAPH keyword also >>>> denotes a >>>> document? Or that the same iri can denotes both a graph and its >>>> serialization? >>> >>> No. It just means what it says. >> >> If I understood what it says, I wouldn't have asked for >> clarification. Care to be a little more educational? Does >> "represents" mean awww:represents, the relation between what comes >> back over the wire when you do an http GET on a URI and what the URI >> denotes? > > Yes, I read it that way. Then the note seems confusing. A graph is an information resource, plain and simple. Information resources, in WEBARCH sense, unless they are fixedresources, in the are available in a number of formats. When you make a HTTP request to get one, possibly with content negotiation. Why is the note necessary? In fact it seems backwards: >>>>> "The FROM NAMED syntax suggests that the IRI identifies the >>>>> corresponding graph, but the relationship between an IRI and a >>>>> graph >>>>> in an RDF dataset is indirect. The IRI identifies a resource, >>>>> and the >>>>> resource is represented by a graph (or, more precisely: by a >>>>> document that serializes a graph). For further details see >>>>> [WEBARCH]." That is, the IRI identifies the graph, and the representation is a serialization of that graph. How is it different than asking for any document, and getting back either html, or rtf, or whatever? -Alan > > >> -Alan >> >> >>> >>>> -Alan >>>> >>>> On Aug 13, 2008, at 4:39 PM, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 14:16 -0400, Jonathan Rees wrote: >>>>>> If I say, in SPARQL: >>>>>> >>>>>> select * from <http://example.com/graph1> { ... } >>>>>> >>>>>> then by my reading of the SPARQL rec (http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf- >>>>>> sparql-query/ >>>>>> ), http://example.com/graph1 is supposed to name a (named) >>>>>> graph. But >>>>>> some SPARQL servers take the URI in a FROM or GRAPH clause and >>>>>> use it >>>>>> with HTTP to fetch an RDF/XML or Turtle document, from which >>>>>> triples >>>>>> are obtained. By the httpRange-14 resolution, the 200 response >>>>>> means >>>>>> that the URI names an information resource. >>>>> >>>>> yes... >>>>> >>>>>> Therefore, at least some RDF graphs (or named graphs) are >>>>>> information >>>>>> resources, right? >>>>> >>>>> Strictly speaking, not quite; the SPARQL >>>>> spec includes this clarification: >>>>> >>>>> "The FROM NAMED syntax suggests that the IRI identifies the >>>>> corresponding graph, but the relationship between an IRI and a >>>>> graph >>>>> in >>>>> an RDF dataset is indirect. The IRI identifies a resource, and the >>>>> resource is represented by a graph (or, more precisely: by a >>>>> document >>>>> that serializes a graph). For further details see [WEBARCH]." >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm sure this has been discussed before... >>>>>> >>>>>> Jonathan >>> >>> -- >>> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ >>> gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E >>> >>> > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ > gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E >
Received on Thursday, 14 August 2008 17:10:41 UTC