- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:36:52 -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 1:32 PM, Dan Connolly wrote: > 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. Not all documents have state. > To say that <http://example.com/graph1> identifies a graph > leads to a contradiction when two different GET requests > return different graphs/representations. How could this happen if they can't change? (as you posit above) BTW, it's fine for two different representations to be returned - doesn't mean the graph(= underlying resource) changed. > p.s. I hope that helps a little, but I really prefer to let specs > speak for themselves. My preference as well. Would be fine if the specs spoke clearly. > 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 17:39:07 UTC