ISSUE-105: Graphs, datasets, authoritative representations, and content negotiation

datasets-webarch

Graphs, datasets, authoritative representations, and content negotiation

State:
CLOSED
Product:
RDF Concepts
Raised by:
Richard Cyganiak
Opened on:
2012-11-07
Description:
According to AWWW, a URI owner may supply *authoritative representations* of the resource identified by that URI, and doing so is a benefit to the community [1].

Also, if a URI has multiple representations associated (via content negotiation), then fragment identifiers should be used consistently between these representations [2].

AWWW also states: “By design, a URI identifies one resource. Using the same URI to directly identify different resources produces a URI collision. Collision often imposes a cost in communication due to the effort required to resolve ambiguities.” [3] Given that RDF graphs and RDF datasets have disjoint definitions in RDF Concepts, this raises the question whether content negotiation can be used to negotiate between a graph-bearing format and a dataset-bearing format.

This raises a number of questions that this WG should be able to answer:


a) Is a Turtle file published at <xxx> containing the triple ":a :b :c" equivalent to this TriG file?

{ :a :b :c }

b) Is a Turtle file published at <xxx> containing the triple ":a :b :c" equivalent to this TriG file?

<> { :a :b :c }

c) If a Turtle file containing the triple ":a :b :c" is published at <xxx>, and the publisher also wants to provide a TriG file via content negotiation (containing only a single graph), what would that equivalent TriG file be? Or would this be a URI collision?

d) Given that publishers should use fragment identifiers with consistent semantics between content-negotiated representations, what restrictions does this TriG file, published at <xxx>, place on the use of the yyy fragment in other representations of <xxx>? What about Turtle representations? What about HTML representations?

<#yyy> { :a :b :c }

e) Does the following TriG file published at <xxx> establish an authoritative representation for <yyy>?

<yyy> { :a :b :c }

f) Does the following TriG file published at <xxx> establish an authoritative representation for <xxx#yyy>?

<#yyy> { :a :b :c }


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#representation-management
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#frag-coneg
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#URI-collision
Related Actions Items:
No related actions
Related emails:
  1. Re: Resolution of ISSUE-105 (from steve.harris@garlik.com on 2013-02-15)
  2. Re: Resolution of ISSUE-105 (from david@3roundstones.com on 2013-02-07)
  3. Re: Resolution of ISSUE-105 (from andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com on 2013-02-07)
  4. Resolution of ISSUE-105 (from prototypo@me.com on 2013-02-06)
  5. Re: ISSUE-105: Graph vs. dataset syntaxes (from andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com on 2012-12-19)
  6. Re: ISSUE-105: Graph vs. dataset syntaxes (from pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr on 2012-12-19)
  7. Re: ISSUE-105: Graph vs. dataset syntaxes (from steve.harris@garlik.com on 2012-12-14)
  8. Re: ISSUE-105: Graph vs. dataset syntaxes (from ivan@w3.org on 2012-12-13)
  9. Re: ISSUE-105: Graph vs. dataset syntaxes (from sandro@w3.org on 2012-12-13)
  10. Re: ISSUE-105: Graph vs. dataset syntaxes (from ivan@w3.org on 2012-12-13)
  11. Re: ISSUE-105: Graph vs. dataset syntaxes (from pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr on 2012-12-09)
  12. JSON-LD Telecon Minutes for 2012-11-27 (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2012-12-05)
  13. ISSUE-105: Graph vs. dataset syntaxes (from markus.lanthaler@gmx.net on 2012-12-05)
  14. Intent to close ISSUE-182 (from markus.lanthaler@gmx.net on 2012-12-04)
  15. JSON-LD Telecon Minutes for 2012-11-20 (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2012-11-26)
  16. RDF Concepts draft ready; overview of open issues (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2012-11-21)
  17. Re: RDF-ISSUE-105 (datasets-webarch): Graphs, datasets, authoritative representations, and content negotiation [RDF Concepts] (from pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr on 2012-11-07)
  18. Re: RDF-ISSUE-105 (datasets-webarch): Graphs, datasets, authoritative representations, and content negotiation [RDF Concepts] (from pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr on 2012-11-07)
  19. RDF-ISSUE-105 (datasets-webarch): Graphs, datasets, authoritative representations, and content negotiation [RDF Concepts] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2012-11-07)

Related notes:

Closed with:

RESOLVED: Add a non-normative statement to RDF Concepts explaining that if a RDF serialization format supports expressing both datasets and graphs, that a consumer should use the default graph if it is expecting a graph. (Actual wording to be handled by editor)

http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-02-06#resolution_1

Sandro Hawke, 6 Feb 2013, 16:51:11

The corrected resolution URL is:
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-02-06#resolution_2

David Wood, 8 May 2013, 16:30:31

Display change log ATOM feed


Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, Chair, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Staff Contacts
Tracker: documentation, (configuration for this group), originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <w3t-sys@w3.org>.
$Id: 105.html,v 1.1 2014-07-09 12:17:54 carine Exp $