- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:35:00 -0500
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 13:23 -0400, Jonathan Rees wrote: > My question has nothing to do with state, by the way. I just want to > know whether the obvious interpretation holds (a graph is an IR) and > is consistent with AWWW/httpRange-14, or whether some roundabout > explanation is needed to distinguish the graph from the IR. > > Personally I would prefer the naive interpretation, the more inclusive > reading of IR, and would have said it was consistent with AWWW. But > when I have attempted this reasoning with other mathematical objects > (such as numbers) I have been "corrected" with the assertion that > abstract things like numbers and graphs are not IRs, and must be > distinguished from the IRs that describe them (or rather that provide > representations of them). Opinions vary on that. Neither AWWW nor the SPARQL spec takes a position one way or the other on whether numbers and graphs are IRs. > It was under the assumption of this narrow IR interpretation that I > said I preferred the convoluted form, since I wouldn't want to force > 303s for every <u> that occurs in a FROM or WHERE. > > I mainly want to know (in this instance), when I write metadata about > an RDF graph, can I use the same URI as the one that occurs in FROM > and WHERE clauses, and still be consistent with AWWW and httpRange-14? > If I write two triples, one that says <u> triple-count 133. (requiring > an RDF graph as subject) and another that says <u> dc:author "John > Maynard Smith". (requiring a document as subject), is that > inconsistent? It's not inconsistent with any ratified specs, but... > Do I need to create separate URIs for the graph and the document? I recommend you do, based on experience with policy management applications and cwm. cwm used to equate a document with a graph that it got from a document, but that turned out to be a pretty limiting constraint, so we introduced the log:semantics relationship between them. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 18 August 2008 14:34:37 UTC