- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:32:38 -0500
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Thu, 2008-08-14 at 13:09 -0400, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: [...] > 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? Graphs are like integers or strings; they don't have state. Documents, in the sense of "the front page of the new york times" do have state; i.e. they change over time. To say that <http://example.com/graph1> identifies a graph leads to a contradiction when two different GET requests return different graphs/representations. p.s. I hope that helps a little, but I really prefer to let specs speak for themselves. p.p.s. is there some test case we could explore? or something less abstract than <http://example.com/graph1>? -- 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 17:37:44 UTC