Re: newbie question about sparql and 200

Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> On 18 Aug 2008, at 15:35, Dan Connolly wrote:
>> 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.
> This is interesting, Dan. Can you share some details? What issues did 
> you bump into when you treated HTTP documents and graphs as equivalent?
> (Not pushing any particular POV here, just curious about your experiences.)

Equally curious: what are the pros and cons of defining log:semantics as 
a functional property? ie. can have two different 
values for it? (I'm thinking about content and language negotiation, as 
well as natural changes over time).




Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2008 12:20:19 UTC