Re: Contd: [pedantic-web] question about sioc / foaf usage

[nat lu]

   [snip]


The identity however is maintained by the "fingerprint" of the
object graphs, and the URI is just an image of that fingerprint at
some point in time/location ?

   I think Identity is managed by the beholder of things, the one that
   deems them important enough to be described, mentioned, talked
   about, or referenced :-)



I should have said what I was thinking in my head and not what my 
fingers were thinking : "The identity however is defined by the 
fingerprint of the object graphs, varying perhaps in time". If I have 
today a graph [a->b->c]  identified by [http://example.lod/myThing] and 
tomorrow I change it to [a->-b->c->d] or maybe [a->b->d], the address is 
the same, the access path is the same, it identifies the same thing, but 
the qualities of that thing have varied : ie, it is the same, but 
different. That difference may or may not be important or have 
consequences for the consumer of that thing.


And unless I provide a versioning URI its not going to be possible to 
provide for recognising, or "replaying" an identity (or isolating the 
change in identity) of a thing, at some previous time - the address for 
instance start as [http://example.lod/v1/myThing] and then become 
[http://example.lod/v2/myThing] and so on ? But in this case the address 
has changed, and the internal access path might have, but they're still 
the same thing (I note it may perhaps also proxied by an agnostic 
[http://example.lod/myThing]. I suppose a canonical LoD-GUID and the 
version chain would need to be qualities of each version ?


If the Semantic Web is the second coming of the Internet, then there is 
going to be a lot of explaining to do :-) Think I'm going to need a 
fundamental allegory or two


Apologies for beating this to death.



Kingsley Idehen wrote:

natlu2809 wrote:

Maybe I'm not understanding the dichotomy here:

* A URI represents a thing, or is an address for a thing

URI Identifies a Thing. URIs basically have Referents (the things they 
Identify).

A URL is a Resource Location/Address.


* Different things have different URIs

Yes, as is the case in real life. Everything of importance to you has 
an Identifier, otherwise you would be able describe or recognize it 
distinct from other things.


* Different URIs represent different things - the POST, to html
  doc/serialisation, the rdf doc/serialisation
* URIs are a front for code that generates things

I would say a powerful abstraction, especially when looking at Generic 
HTTP scheme URIs. For instance, each component of said URIs affects 
the Data Representation that manifests when you issue an HTTP GET. 
This is kind of like a composite (compound / concatenated) key in an 
RDBMS, change a component as all associated data changes, and said 
changes imply different data representations to the construction or 
breakage of data relations. You basically get two things in one: 
Identity (Reference)/Access (Address) duality, with Generic HTTP URIs.


Now here is the problem (as I've seen and experienced it), there is a 
tendency to conflate a Generic URI with a Generic HTTP URI, the former 
includes schemes like URN while the latter doesn't. Even worse, there 
is a tendency to simply never mention URLs, and thereby conflate this 
Location / Address oriented Identifier with a Generic HTTP URI which 
simply makes everything confusing and inconsistent.


   *


but

* A URI can represent the same thing in different serialisations
  depending on which agent/device/lense you look at it with

A Generic HTTP URI is a conduit to a myriad of associated data 
representations (remember its duality).


but

* a different URI can represent the same thing as another URI -
  http://example.lod/doc.html can be the same thing as
  http://example.lod/resource/doc when requested by a html agent ?


You can have different Identifiers for the same thing irrespective of 
URI scheme. The Generic HTTP URI simply adds resolvability (data 
access) to the mix courtesy of the HTTP scheme.
The identity however is maintained by the "fingerprint" of the object 
graphs, and the URI is just an image of that fingerprint at some 
point in time/location ?
I think Identity is managed by the beholder of things, the one that 
deems them important enough to be described, mentioned, talked about, 
or referenced :-)


Kingsley




http:
Kingsley Idehen wrote:

Nathan wrote:

Hi All,

To follow on a conversation I'm having with Kingsley at the minute, 
and

to make it public, I'm also cc'ing in public-lod, pedantic-web and the
sioc user list, as it is to do with all 3. Please do give feedback and
correct me where I'm wrong. Especially if you can inline comment where
something is wrong in my understanding.

Kingsley Idehen wrote:
 

Nathan wrote:
  

so do / should the Post, HTML Document and RDF Document all have
different Identifiers?
  

If you want to make a statement (create a record) describing anything
yo

Re: Contd: [pedantic-web] question about sioc / foaf usage

[Kingsley Idehen]

Nathan wrote:

nat lu wrote:
  

   [snip]



The identity however is maintained by the "fingerprint" of the
object graphs, and the URI is just an image of that fingerprint at
some point in time/location ?
  

   I think Identity is managed by the beholder of things, the one that
   deems them important enough to be described, mentioned, talked
   about, or referenced :-)



I should have said what I was thinking in my head and not what my
fingers were thinking : "The identity however is defined by the
fingerprint of the object graphs, varying perhaps in time". If I have
today a graph [a->b->c]  identified by [http://example.lod/myThing] and
tomorrow I change it to [a->-b->c->d] or maybe [a->b->d], the address is
the same, the access path is the same, it identifies the same thing, but
the qualities of that thing have varied : ie, it is the same, but
different. That difference may or may not be important or have
consequences for the consumer of that thing.

And unless I provide a versioning URI its not going to be possible to
provide for recognising, or "replaying" an identity (or isolating the
change in identity) of a thing, at some previous time - the address for
instance start as [http://example.lod/v1/myThing] and then become
[http://example.lod/v2/myThing] and so on ? But in this case the address
has changed, and the internal access path might have, but they're still
the same thing (I note it may perhaps also proxied by an agnostic
[http://example.lod/myThing]. I suppose a canonical LoD-GUID and the
version chain would need to be qualities of each version ?










then when you dereference the uri to get info you always hit the same
graph since you remove the fragment to dereference.

and to handle the versions you can use triples like..



 ,
 ;

 ;

 .




 .
  
Yes, this is all fine, but it falls bucket: how you or your application 
have decided to version data etc. :-)



thus you can always describe a single version of a resource, the latest
version, and so on.
  
Delta-V vocabulary for RDF would enable this sort of thing to be done in 
a uniform manner re. interoperability etc.. But its still application 
(Versioning) specific orchestration that also loosely connected to the 
Provenance space etc..


  
Time-travel via Dataset Deltas is a service that someone (or entity) may 
decide to offer; basically, a Linked Data driven Time Machine :-)


Kingsley

regards!

  



--


Regards,

Kingsley Idehen   Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com

Re: Contd: [pedantic-web] question about sioc / foaf usage

[Kingsley Idehen]

nat lu wrote:


[snip]


The identity however is maintained by the "fingerprint" of the
object graphs, and the URI is just an image of that fingerprint
at some point in time/location ?

I think Identity is managed by the beholder of things, the one
that deems them important enough to be described, mentioned,
talked about, or referenced :-)



I should have said what I was thinking in my head and not what my 
fingers were thinking : "The identity however is defined by the 
fingerprint of the object graphs, varying perhaps in time". If I have 
today a graph [a->b->c]  identified by [http://example.lod/myThing] 
and tomorrow I change it to [a->-b->c->d] or maybe [a->b->d], the 
address is the same, the access path is the same, it identifies the 
same thing, but the qualities of that thing have varied : ie, it is 
the same, but different. That difference may or may not be important 
or have consequences for the consumer of that thing.

Naturally :-)


And unless I provide a versioning URI its not going to be possible to 
provide for recognising, or "replaying" an identity (or isolating the 
change in identity) of a thing, at some previous time - the address 
for instance start as [http://example.lod/v1/myThing] and then become 
[http://example.lod/v2/myThing] and so on ? But in this case the 
address has changed, and the internal access path might have, but 
they're still the same thing (I note it may perhaps also proxied by an 
agnostic [http://example.lod/myThing]. I suppose a canonical LoD-GUID 
and the version chain would need to be qualities of each version ?
Thorny issue here, and it is application specific. By this I mean your 
in the application domain re. the above, where application purpose is 
something like a "Time Machine" for deltas associated data bound to a 
give URI.


If the Semantic Web is the second coming of the Internet, then there 
is going to be a lot of explaining to do :-) Think I'm going to need a 
fundamental allegory or two


Apologies for beating this to death.
Those who seek to archive the Web (or the broader Internet )are the ones 
that would typically deliver such functionality, as part of their 
archival services (imho).


Kingsley




Kingsley Idehen wrote:

natlu2809 wrote:

Maybe I'm not understanding the dichotomy here:

* A URI represents a thing, or is an address for a thing

URI Identifies a Thing. URIs basically have Referents (the things 
they Identify).

A URL is a Resource Location/Address.


* Different things have different URIs

Yes, as is the case in real life. Everything of importance to you has 
an Identifier, otherwise you would be able describe or recognize it 
distinct from other things.


* Different URIs represent different things - the POST, to html
  doc/serialisation, the rdf doc/serialisation
* URIs are a front for code that generates things

I would say a powerful abstraction, especially when looking at 
Generic HTTP scheme URIs. For instance, each component of said URIs 
affects the Data Representation that manifests when you issue an HTTP 
GET. This is kind of like a composite (compound / concatenated) key 
in an RDBMS, change a component as all associated data changes, and 
said changes imply different data representations to the construction 
or breakage of data relations. You basically get two things in one: 
Identity (Reference)/Access (Address) duality, with Generic HTTP URIs.


Now here is the problem (as I've seen and experienced it), there is a 
tendency to conflate a Generic URI with a Generic HTTP URI, the 
former includes schemes like URN while the latter doesn't. Even 
worse, there is a tendency to simply never mention URLs, and thereby 
conflate this Location / Address oriented Identifier with a Generic 
HTTP URI which simply makes everything confusing and inconsistent.


   *


but

* A URI can represent the same thing in different serialisations
  depending on which agent/device/lense you look at it with

A Generic HTTP URI is a conduit to a myriad of associated data 
representations (remember its duality).


but

* a different URI can represent the same thing as another URI -
  http://example.lod/doc.html can be the same thing as
  http://example.lod/resource/doc when requested by a html agent ?


You can have different Identifiers for the same thing irrespective of 
URI scheme. The Generic HTTP URI simply adds resolvability (data 
access) to the mix courtesy of the HTTP scheme.
The identity however is maintained by the "fingerprint" of the 
object graphs, and the URI is just an image of that fingerprint at 
some point in time/location ?
I think Identity is managed by the beholder of things, the one that 
deems them important enough to be described, mentioned, talked about, 
or referenced :-)


Kingsley




http:
Kingsley Idehen wrote:

Nathan wrote:

Hi All,

To follow on a conversation I'm having with Kingsley at the 
minute, and
to make it public, I'm also c

Re: Contd: [pedantic-web] question about sioc / foaf usage

[Nathan]

nat lu wrote:
>[snip]
> 
>> The identity however is maintained by the "fingerprint" of the
>> object graphs, and the URI is just an image of that fingerprint at
>> some point in time/location ?
>I think Identity is managed by the beholder of things, the one that
>deems them important enough to be described, mentioned, talked
>about, or referenced :-)
> 
> 
> 
> I should have said what I was thinking in my head and not what my
> fingers were thinking : "The identity however is defined by the
> fingerprint of the object graphs, varying perhaps in time". If I have
> today a graph [a->b->c]  identified by [http://example.lod/myThing] and
> tomorrow I change it to [a->-b->c->d] or maybe [a->b->d], the address is
> the same, the access path is the same, it identifies the same thing, but
> the qualities of that thing have varied : ie, it is the same, but
> different. That difference may or may not be important or have
> consequences for the consumer of that thing.
> 
> And unless I provide a versioning URI its not going to be possible to
> provide for recognising, or "replaying" an identity (or isolating the
> change in identity) of a thing, at some previous time - the address for
> instance start as [http://example.lod/v1/myThing] and then become
> [http://example.lod/v2/myThing] and so on ? But in this case the address
> has changed, and the internal access path might have, but they're still
> the same thing (I note it may perhaps also proxied by an agnostic
> [http://example.lod/myThing]. I suppose a canonical LoD-GUID and the
> version chain would need to be qualities of each version ?
> 







then when you dereference the uri to get info you always hit the same
graph since you remove the fragment to dereference.

and to handle the versions you can use triples like..



 ,
 ;

 ;

 .




 .

thus you can always describe a single version of a resource, the latest
version, and so on.



regards!

Re: Contd: [pedantic-web] question about sioc / foaf usage

[Kingsley Idehen]

natlu2809 wrote:

Maybe I'm not understanding the dichotomy here:

* A URI represents a thing, or is an address for a thing

URI Identifies a Thing. URIs basically have Referents (the things they 
Identify).

A URL is a Resource Location/Address.


* Different things have different URIs

Yes, as is the case in real life. Everything of importance to you has an 
Identifier, otherwise you would be able describe or recognize it 
distinct from other things.


* Different URIs represent different things - the POST, to html
  doc/serialisation, the rdf doc/serialisation
* URIs are a front for code that generates things

I would say a powerful abstraction, especially when looking at Generic 
HTTP scheme URIs. For instance, each component of said URIs affects the 
Data Representation that manifests when you issue an HTTP GET. This is 
kind of like a composite (compound / concatenated) key in an RDBMS, 
change a component as all associated data changes, and said changes 
imply different data representations to the construction or breakage of 
data relations. You basically get two things in one: Identity 
(Reference)/Access (Address) duality, with Generic HTTP URIs.


Now here is the problem (as I've seen and experienced it), there is a 
tendency to conflate a Generic URI with a Generic HTTP URI, the former 
includes schemes like URN while the latter doesn't. Even worse, there is 
a tendency to simply never mention URLs, and thereby conflate this 
Location / Address oriented Identifier with a Generic HTTP URI which 
simply makes everything confusing and inconsistent.


   *


but

* A URI can represent the same thing in different serialisations
  depending on which agent/device/lense you look at it with

A Generic HTTP URI is a conduit to a myriad of associated data 
representations (remember its duality).


but

* a different URI can represent the same thing as another URI -
  http://example.lod/doc.html can be the same thing as
  http://example.lod/resource/doc when requested by a html agent ?


You can have different Identifiers for the same thing irrespective of 
URI scheme. The Generic HTTP URI simply adds resolvability (data access) 
to the mix courtesy of the HTTP scheme.
The identity however is maintained by the "fingerprint" of the object 
graphs, and the URI is just an image of that fingerprint at some point 
in time/location ?
I think Identity is managed by the beholder of things, the one that 
deems them important enough to be described, mentioned, talked about, or 
referenced :-)


Kingsley




http:
Kingsley Idehen wrote:

Nathan wrote:

Hi All,

To follow on a conversation I'm having with Kingsley at the minute, and
to make it public, I'm also cc'ing in public-lod, pedantic-web and the
sioc user list, as it is to do with all 3. Please do give feedback and
correct me where I'm wrong. Especially if you can inline comment where
something is wrong in my understanding.

Kingsley Idehen wrote:
 

Nathan wrote:
   

so do / should the Post, HTML Document and RDF Document all have
different Identifiers?
  

If you want to make a statement (create a record) describing anything
you need an Identifier for the subject of your description. If you 
want

said description (a graph pictorial) to be fully explorable using HTTP
(what Linked Data is about) then you shouldn't use the URL (Address 
of a

Resource) as its Identifier. An HTTP GET against a URL has specific
consequences distinct from an HTTP GET against a Generic HTTP 
scheme URI

(a genuine Identifier/Name that Identifies an Object/Resource/Data
Item/Entity).

Rather than do the whole 303 and hash URI dance (counter productive
since it dances around the issue of Data Identity), see if this 
document

of Data Object Identity clarifies things for you re. Identifiers.

Links:

1.
http://www.cs..cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/clamen/OODBMS/Manifesto/htManifesto/node4.html 






okay.. here's the set-up; I have:

* a "Post" which is a 
* a HTML Document which contains (among other things) a human readable
representation of the  at an URL
* a RDF Document which contains a graph pictorial of the 
which is published at an URL

to describe or reference the  I have to give it a URI:
  

to describe or reference the HTML Document I have to give it a URI:
  
in addition the HTML document has an URL
  

to describe or reference the RDF Document I have to give it a URI:
  
in addition the RDF document has an URL
  
Assumption: your Identifiers are slash terminated (i.e. Slash style 
of Generic HTTP URI).


now, I'm assuming the RDF Document will need to be self describing 
(also

contain a graph pictorial about itself, as well as the  -
here's a very simplified version of the triples it'd contain.
  

So the RDF 

Re: Contd: [pedantic-web] question about sioc / foaf usage

[natlu2809]

Maybe I'm not understanding the dichotomy here:

   * A URI represents a thing, or is an address for a thing
   * Different things have different URIs
   * Different URIs represent different things - the POST, to html
 doc/serialisation, the rdf doc/serialisation
   * URIs are a front for code that generates things

but

   * A URI can represent the same thing in different serialisations
 depending on which agent/device/lense you look at it with

but

   * a different URI can represent the same thing as another URI -
 http://example.lod/doc.html can be the same thing as
 http://example.lod/resource/doc when requested by a html agent ?


The identity however is maintained by the "fingerprint" of the object 
graphs, and the URI is just an image of that fingerprint at some point 
in time/location ?




http:
Kingsley Idehen wrote:

Nathan wrote:

Hi All,

To follow on a conversation I'm having with Kingsley at the minute, and
to make it public, I'm also cc'ing in public-lod, pedantic-web and the
sioc user list, as it is to do with all 3. Please do give feedback and
correct me where I'm wrong. Especially if you can inline comment where
something is wrong in my understanding.

Kingsley Idehen wrote:
 

Nathan wrote:
   

so do / should the Post, HTML Document and RDF Document all have
different Identifiers?
  

If you want to make a statement (create a record) describing anything
you need an Identifier for the subject of your description. If you want
said description (a graph pictorial) to be fully explorable using HTTP
(what Linked Data is about) then you shouldn't use the URL (Address 
of a

Resource) as its Identifier. An HTTP GET against a URL has specific
consequences distinct from an HTTP GET against a Generic HTTP scheme 
URI

(a genuine Identifier/Name that Identifies an Object/Resource/Data
Item/Entity).

Rather than do the whole 303 and hash URI dance (counter productive
since it dances around the issue of Data Identity), see if this 
document

of Data Object Identity clarifies things for you re. Identifiers.

Links:

1.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/clamen/OODBMS/Manifesto/htManifesto/node4.html 






okay.. here's the set-up; I have:

* a "Post" which is a 
* a HTML Document which contains (among other things) a human readable
representation of the  at an URL
* a RDF Document which contains a graph pictorial of the 
which is published at an URL

to describe or reference the  I have to give it a URI:
  

to describe or reference the HTML Document I have to give it a URI:
  
in addition the HTML document has an URL
  

to describe or reference the RDF Document I have to give it a URI:
  
in addition the RDF document has an URL
  
Assumption: your Identifiers are slash terminated (i.e. Slash style of 
Generic HTTP URI).


now, I'm assuming the RDF Document will need to be self describing (also
contain a graph pictorial about itself, as well as the  -
here's a very simplified version of the triples it'd contain.
  

So the RDF data container (resource)  is:

, right?


     ;
 "SIOC Post profile for post-123"@en
  .

     .

Q1: is  correct here?
  

Yep.
to say that the  is contained by this graph we'd add the 
triple:

  
  .
  
Redundant, but not necessarily incorrect. You can make redundant 
statements :-)

then we need to say where the rdf graph can be found (provide it's URL):
  
  .
  


 is a data set 
container so you identify it properly as in: 
, via a simple 
URL to Generic HTTP URI hack, with Linked Data de-referencing in mind 
re. exploration of the description of this Thing/Object/Entity/Data 
Item. Note: a little change-up as I've added a new Identifier but 
taken the cheap # route via fragment identifier.


This also means your could have stated the following at the top:

   
 ;

  .

   ;
  "SIOC Post profile for post-123"@en.

OR even the following, assuming you'd already assigned these URIs and 
discovered that  is basically 
the same as  
i.e., RDF data set containers (documents or information resources):


   
 ;

Re: Contd: [pedantic-web] question about sioc / foaf usage

[Nathan]

Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> Nathan wrote:
>> [SNIP]

i think it's safe to say I grok this all now (lod); armed with
everything i need, and full comprehension to do a months work in the
next 4 days!

kingsley, sincerely, thank you for everything - you've been invaluable
in this process and looking forward to helping spread the word and help
people understand + implement wherever possible over the coming months
(and on).

many many thanks to all who've helped out, by no means am i undermining
the help of you all by specifically mentioning kingsley, just he's
committed a vast amount of hours from both himself and the team at
openlink to getting me through this.

many regards,

nathan

Re: Contd: [pedantic-web] question about sioc / foaf usage

[Kingsley Idehen]

Nathan wrote:

[SNIP]

perfect, thanks kingsley :)

only q (which i still don't follow) is that afaik I *need* to specify in
 rdf where one can find the HTML document, no point describing something
people can't find... noted that in you're own rdf you use:

 

i essentially need the equiv for anything;

  
  .
or
  .

the thing I'm describing can be found at web address, ie show the human
this version etc etc (if you follow)



perhaps foaf:page ? like dbpedia uses?

  
No problem, but note my comment re. use of icons as visual cue if you 
are making an HTML based browser page. Either way, foaf:page is fine.


--


Regards,

Kingsley Idehen   Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com

Re: Contd: [pedantic-web] question about sioc / foaf usage

[Kingsley Idehen]

Nathan wrote:

Kingsley Idehen wrote:
  

Nathan wrote:


Hi All,

To follow on a conversation I'm having with Kingsley at the minute, and
to make it public, I'm also cc'ing in public-lod, pedantic-web and the
sioc user list, as it is to do with all 3. Please do give feedback and
correct me where I'm wrong. Especially if you can inline comment where
something is wrong in my understanding.

Kingsley Idehen wrote:
 
  

Nathan wrote:
   


so do / should the Post, HTML Document and RDF Document all have
different Identifiers?
  
  

If you want to make a statement (create a record) describing anything
you need an Identifier for the subject of your description. If you want
said description (a graph pictorial) to be fully explorable using HTTP
(what Linked Data is about) then you shouldn't use the URL (Address of a
Resource) as its Identifier. An HTTP GET against a URL has specific
consequences distinct from an HTTP GET against a Generic HTTP scheme URI
(a genuine Identifier/Name that Identifies an Object/Resource/Data
Item/Entity).

Rather than do the whole 303 and hash URI dance (counter productive
since it dances around the issue of Data Identity), see if this document
of Data Object Identity clarifies things for you re. Identifiers.

Links:

1.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/clamen/OODBMS/Manifesto/htManifesto/node4.html





okay.. here's the set-up; I have:

* a "Post" which is a 
* a HTML Document which contains (among other things) a human readable
representation of the  at an URL
* a RDF Document which contains a graph pictorial of the 
which is published at an URL

to describe or reference the  I have to give it a URI:
  

to describe or reference the HTML Document I have to give it a URI:
  
in addition the HTML document has an URL
  

to describe or reference the RDF Document I have to give it a URI:
  
in addition the RDF document has an URL
  
  

Assumption: your Identifiers are slash terminated (i.e. Slash style of
Generic HTTP URI).


now, I'm assuming the RDF Document will need to be self describing (also
contain a graph pictorial about itself, as well as the  -
here's a very simplified version of the triples it'd contain.
  
  

So the RDF data container (resource)  is:

, right?



     ;
 "SIOC Post profile for post-123"@en
  .

     .

Q1: is  correct here?
  
  

Yep.


to say that the  is contained by this graph we'd add the
triple:
  
  .
  
  

Redundant, but not necessarily incorrect. You can make redundant
statements :-)


then we need to say where the rdf graph can be found (provide it's URL):
  
  .
  
  

 is a data set
container so you identify it properly as in:
, via a simple
URL to Generic HTTP URI hack, with Linked Data de-referencing in mind
re. exploration of the description of this Thing/Object/Entity/Data
Item. Note: a little change-up as I've added a new Identifier but taken
the cheap # route via fragment identifier.

This also means your could have stated the following at the top:

  
 ;
  .

   ;
  "SIOC Post profile for post-123"@en.

OR even the following, assuming you'd already assigned these URIs and
discovered that  is basically the
same as  i.e.,
RDF data set containers (documents or information resources):

  
 ;
;
  .

   ;
  "SIOC Post profile for post-123"@en.






Q2: which ontology does one use for  in the above triple?
  
  

None.


then we need to say that the HTML document is a document, that contains
a human readable version of the  (amongst other things)

  
  ;
  .

Q3: is the HTML Document a , which is a container of the
?

  ,  ;
  ;
  .
  
  

Yes, esp. as.

Note same applies to the RDF data container as in:

Re: Contd: [pedantic-web] question about sioc / foaf usage

[Nathan]

Nathan wrote:
> Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> Nathan wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> To follow on a conversation I'm having with Kingsley at the minute, and
>>> to make it public, I'm also cc'ing in public-lod, pedantic-web and the
>>> sioc user list, as it is to do with all 3. Please do give feedback and
>>> correct me where I'm wrong. Especially if you can inline comment where
>>> something is wrong in my understanding.
>>>
>>> Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>>  
 Nathan wrote:

> so do / should the Post, HTML Document and RDF Document all have
> different Identifiers?
>   
 If you want to make a statement (create a record) describing anything
 you need an Identifier for the subject of your description. If you want
 said description (a graph pictorial) to be fully explorable using HTTP
 (what Linked Data is about) then you shouldn't use the URL (Address of a
 Resource) as its Identifier. An HTTP GET against a URL has specific
 consequences distinct from an HTTP GET against a Generic HTTP scheme URI
 (a genuine Identifier/Name that Identifies an Object/Resource/Data
 Item/Entity).

 Rather than do the whole 303 and hash URI dance (counter productive
 since it dances around the issue of Data Identity), see if this document
 of Data Object Identity clarifies things for you re. Identifiers.

 Links:

 1.
 http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/clamen/OODBMS/Manifesto/htManifesto/node4.html


 
>>> okay.. here's the set-up; I have:
>>>
>>> * a "Post" which is a 
>>> * a HTML Document which contains (among other things) a human readable
>>> representation of the  at an URL
>>> * a RDF Document which contains a graph pictorial of the 
>>> which is published at an URL
>>>
>>> to describe or reference the  I have to give it a URI:
>>>   
>>>
>>> to describe or reference the HTML Document I have to give it a URI:
>>>   
>>> in addition the HTML document has an URL
>>>   
>>>
>>> to describe or reference the RDF Document I have to give it a URI:
>>>   
>>> in addition the RDF document has an URL
>>>   
>> Assumption: your Identifiers are slash terminated (i.e. Slash style of
>> Generic HTTP URI).
>>> now, I'm assuming the RDF Document will need to be self describing (also
>>> contain a graph pictorial about itself, as well as the  -
>>> here's a very simplified version of the triples it'd contain.
>>>   
>> So the RDF data container (resource)  is:
>>
>> , right?
>>
>>>      ;
>>>  "SIOC Post profile for post-123"@en
>>>   .
>>>
>>>      .
>>>
>>> Q1: is  correct here?
>>>   
>> Yep.
>>> to say that the  is contained by this graph we'd add the
>>> triple:
>>>   
>>>   .
>>>   
>> Redundant, but not necessarily incorrect. You can make redundant
>> statements :-)
>>> then we need to say where the rdf graph can be found (provide it's URL):
>>>   
>>>   .
>>>   
>>  is a data set
>> container so you identify it properly as in:
>> , via a simple
>> URL to Generic HTTP URI hack, with Linked Data de-referencing in mind
>> re. exploration of the description of this Thing/Object/Entity/Data
>> Item. Note: a little change-up as I've added a new Identifier but taken
>> the cheap # route via fragment identifier.
>>
>> This also means your could have stated the following at the top:
>>
>>   
>>  ;
>>   .
>>
>>    ;
>>   "SIOC Post profile for post-123"@en.
>>
>> OR even the following, assuming you'd already assigned these URIs and
>> discovered that  is basically the
>> same as  i.e.,
>> RDF data set containers (documents or information resources):
>>
>>   
>>  ;
>> ;
>>   .
>>
>>    ;
>>   "SIOC Post profile for post-123"@en.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Q2: which ontology does one use for  in the above triple?
>>>   
>> None.
>>> then we need to say that the HTML document is a document, that contains
>>> a human readable version of the  (amongst other things)
>>>
>>>   
>>>

Re: Contd: [pedantic-web] question about sioc / foaf usage

[Nathan]

Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> Nathan wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> To follow on a conversation I'm having with Kingsley at the minute, and
>> to make it public, I'm also cc'ing in public-lod, pedantic-web and the
>> sioc user list, as it is to do with all 3. Please do give feedback and
>> correct me where I'm wrong. Especially if you can inline comment where
>> something is wrong in my understanding.
>>
>> Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>  
>>> Nathan wrote:
>>>
 so do / should the Post, HTML Document and RDF Document all have
 different Identifiers?
   
>>> If you want to make a statement (create a record) describing anything
>>> you need an Identifier for the subject of your description. If you want
>>> said description (a graph pictorial) to be fully explorable using HTTP
>>> (what Linked Data is about) then you shouldn't use the URL (Address of a
>>> Resource) as its Identifier. An HTTP GET against a URL has specific
>>> consequences distinct from an HTTP GET against a Generic HTTP scheme URI
>>> (a genuine Identifier/Name that Identifies an Object/Resource/Data
>>> Item/Entity).
>>>
>>> Rather than do the whole 303 and hash URI dance (counter productive
>>> since it dances around the issue of Data Identity), see if this document
>>> of Data Object Identity clarifies things for you re. Identifiers.
>>>
>>> Links:
>>>
>>> 1.
>>> http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/clamen/OODBMS/Manifesto/htManifesto/node4.html
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>
>> okay.. here's the set-up; I have:
>>
>> * a "Post" which is a 
>> * a HTML Document which contains (among other things) a human readable
>> representation of the  at an URL
>> * a RDF Document which contains a graph pictorial of the 
>> which is published at an URL
>>
>> to describe or reference the  I have to give it a URI:
>>   
>>
>> to describe or reference the HTML Document I have to give it a URI:
>>   
>> in addition the HTML document has an URL
>>   
>>
>> to describe or reference the RDF Document I have to give it a URI:
>>   
>> in addition the RDF document has an URL
>>   
> Assumption: your Identifiers are slash terminated (i.e. Slash style of
> Generic HTTP URI).
>>
>> now, I'm assuming the RDF Document will need to be self describing (also
>> contain a graph pictorial about itself, as well as the  -
>> here's a very simplified version of the triples it'd contain.
>>   
> So the RDF data container (resource)  is:
> 
> , right?
> 
>>      ;
>>  "SIOC Post profile for post-123"@en
>>   .
>>
>>      .
>>
>> Q1: is  correct here?
>>   
> Yep.
>> to say that the  is contained by this graph we'd add the
>> triple:
>>   
>>   .
>>   
> Redundant, but not necessarily incorrect. You can make redundant
> statements :-)
>> then we need to say where the rdf graph can be found (provide it's URL):
>>   
>>   .
>>   
> 
>  is a data set
> container so you identify it properly as in:
> , via a simple
> URL to Generic HTTP URI hack, with Linked Data de-referencing in mind
> re. exploration of the description of this Thing/Object/Entity/Data
> Item. Note: a little change-up as I've added a new Identifier but taken
> the cheap # route via fragment identifier.
> 
> This also means your could have stated the following at the top:
> 
>   
>  ;
>   .
> 
>    ;
>   "SIOC Post profile for post-123"@en.
> 
> OR even the following, assuming you'd already assigned these URIs and
> discovered that  is basically the
> same as  i.e.,
> RDF data set containers (documents or information resources):
> 
>   
>  ;
> ;
>   .
> 
>    ;
>   "SIOC Post profile for post-123"@en.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Q2: which ontology does one use for  in the above triple?
>>   
> None.
>> then we need to say that the HTML document is a document, that contains
>> a human readable version of the  (amongst other things)
>>
>>   
>>   ;
>>   .
>>
>> Q3: is the HTML Document a , which is a container of the
>> ?
>

Re: Contd: [pedantic-web] question about sioc / foaf usage

[Kingsley Idehen]

Nathan wrote:

Hi All,

To follow on a conversation I'm having with Kingsley at the minute, and
to make it public, I'm also cc'ing in public-lod, pedantic-web and the
sioc user list, as it is to do with all 3. Please do give feedback and
correct me where I'm wrong. Especially if you can inline comment where
something is wrong in my understanding.

Kingsley Idehen wrote:
  

Nathan wrote:


so do / should the Post, HTML Document and RDF Document all have
different Identifiers?
  

If you want to make a statement (create a record) describing anything
you need an Identifier for the subject of your description. If you want
said description (a graph pictorial) to be fully explorable using HTTP
(what Linked Data is about) then you shouldn't use the URL (Address of a
Resource) as its Identifier. An HTTP GET against a URL has specific
consequences distinct from an HTTP GET against a Generic HTTP scheme URI
(a genuine Identifier/Name that Identifies an Object/Resource/Data
Item/Entity).

Rather than do the whole 303 and hash URI dance (counter productive
since it dances around the issue of Data Identity), see if this document
of Data Object Identity clarifies things for you re. Identifiers.

Links:

1.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/clamen/OODBMS/Manifesto/htManifesto/node4.html




okay.. here's the set-up; I have:

* a "Post" which is a 
* a HTML Document which contains (among other things) a human readable
representation of the  at an URL
* a RDF Document which contains a graph pictorial of the 
which is published at an URL

to describe or reference the  I have to give it a URI:
  

to describe or reference the HTML Document I have to give it a URI:
  
in addition the HTML document has an URL
  

to describe or reference the RDF Document I have to give it a URI:
  
in addition the RDF document has an URL
  
Assumption: your Identifiers are slash terminated (i.e. Slash style of 
Generic HTTP URI).


now, I'm assuming the RDF Document will need to be self describing (also
contain a graph pictorial about itself, as well as the  -
here's a very simplified version of the triples it'd contain.
  

So the RDF data container (resource)  is:

, right?


     ;
 "SIOC Post profile for post-123"@en
  .

     .

Q1: is  correct here?
  

Yep.

to say that the  is contained by this graph we'd add the triple:
  
  .
  
Redundant, but not necessarily incorrect. You can make redundant 
statements :-)

then we need to say where the rdf graph can be found (provide it's URL):
  
  .
  


 is a data set container so you 
identify it properly as in: , 
via a simple URL to Generic HTTP URI hack, with Linked Data de-referencing in mind re. 
exploration of the description of this Thing/Object/Entity/Data Item. Note: a little 
change-up as I've added a new Identifier but taken the cheap # route via fragment 
identifier.

This also means your could have stated the following at the top:

   
 ;
  .

   ;
  "SIOC Post profile for post-123"@en.

OR even the following, assuming you'd already assigned these URIs and discovered that 
 is basically the same as 
 i.e., RDF data set 
containers (documents or information resources):

   
 ;
;
  .

   ;
  "SIOC Post profile for post-123"@en.





Q2: which ontology does one use for  in the above triple?
  

None.

then we need to say that the HTML document is a document, that contains
a human readable version of the  (amongst other things)

  
  ;
  .

Q3: is the HTML Document a , which is a container of the
?

  ,  ;
  ;
  .
  

Yes, esp. as.

Note same applies to the RDF data container as in:

   , 
 ;
  ;
 

Re: Contd: [pedantic-web] question about sioc / foaf usage

[Nathan]

Hi All,

To follow on a conversation I'm having with Kingsley at the minute, and
to make it public, I'm also cc'ing in public-lod, pedantic-web and the
sioc user list, as it is to do with all 3. Please do give feedback and
correct me where I'm wrong. Especially if you can inline comment where
something is wrong in my understanding.

Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> Nathan wrote:
>> so do / should the Post, HTML Document and RDF Document all have
>> different Identifiers?
> If you want to make a statement (create a record) describing anything
> you need an Identifier for the subject of your description. If you want
> said description (a graph pictorial) to be fully explorable using HTTP
> (what Linked Data is about) then you shouldn't use the URL (Address of a
> Resource) as its Identifier. An HTTP GET against a URL has specific
> consequences distinct from an HTTP GET against a Generic HTTP scheme URI
> (a genuine Identifier/Name that Identifies an Object/Resource/Data
> Item/Entity).
> 
> Rather than do the whole 303 and hash URI dance (counter productive
> since it dances around the issue of Data Identity), see if this document
> of Data Object Identity clarifies things for you re. Identifiers.
> 
> Links:
> 
> 1.
> http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/clamen/OODBMS/Manifesto/htManifesto/node4.html
> 

okay.. here's the set-up; I have:

* a "Post" which is a 
* a HTML Document which contains (among other things) a human readable
representation of the  at an URL
* a RDF Document which contains a graph pictorial of the 
which is published at an URL

to describe or reference the  I have to give it a URI:
  

to describe or reference the HTML Document I have to give it a URI:
  
in addition the HTML document has an URL
  

to describe or reference the RDF Document I have to give it a URI:
  
in addition the RDF document has an URL
  


now, I'm assuming the RDF Document will need to be self describing (also
contain a graph pictorial about itself, as well as the  -
here's a very simplified version of the triples it'd contain.

     ;
 "SIOC Post profile for post-123"@en
  .

     .

Q1: is  correct here?

to say that the  is contained by this graph we'd add the triple:
  
  .

then we need to say where the rdf graph can be found (provide it's URL):
  
  .

Q2: which ontology does one use for  in the above triple?

then we need to say that the HTML document is a document, that contains
a human readable version of the  (amongst other things)

  
  ;
  .

Q3: is the HTML Document a , which is a container of the
?

  ,  ;
  ;
  .

Q4: should we also say the description of the HTML Document is also
contained by this graph?
  
  .

Q5: how do we specify the URL of the HTML Document?

  .

I think that's enough for now; all feedback welcome!

regards

nathan

Re: Contd: [pedantic-web] question about sioc / foaf usage

[Ian Davis]

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:02 AM, Peter Ansell  wrote:
> The necessary declaration of "document" as distinct, and yet necessary
> for the definition of "data", and the necessity of different URI's for
> these two concepts, are fundamental sticking points for many people.

Who is getting stuck on this point? Documents have URIs, as do the
things documents might contain data about.

> If the HTTP web no longer existed (or the internet connection was
> temporarily down), the discussion about document versus data would be
> mute. Simple RDF Triple database queries, that do not rely on HTTP
> communication, have no necessary need to refer to the
> Document/Artifact. Only "data" would exist in the RDF triples (unless
> you deliberately blur the division using the notion of foaf:Document
> via foaf:primaryTopic for instance). Hence the debacle with saying
> that Document is a necessary element to understand and use RDF data
> linked together using resolvable HTTP URI's when to many it is just an
> artifact that doesn't influence, and shouldn't need to semantically
> interfere with, the data/information content that is actually being
> referenced.

I disagree. Documents aren't HTTP artefacts: they exist happily on
disks, printouts and in books. You can identify the medium (the data
container in Kingsley's words) separately from the things it is
describing (the data items). In fact it is usually necessary to do,
and intuitive for most people who can distinguish the publisher of a
book from the protaganist it describes.

>
> In the long term, I see it as introducing a permanent link from a
> semantic RDF (or other similar format) universe to the current
> document segregated web that wouldn't be there if everyone shared
> their RDF information through some other system, and for example only
> used the URI verbatim to do queries on some global hashtable/index
> somewhere where there was no concept of document at the native RDF
> level. The definition of Linked Data doesn't specifically say that
> HTTP URI's have to be resolved using HTTP GET requests over TCP port
> 80 using DNS for an intermediate host name lookup as necessary, so why
> should it require the notion of documents to be necessary containers
> for data pretty much just because that is how HTTP GET semantics work.
>
> I characterise it as a debacle because it has been a recurring
> discussion for many years and shows that the semantic communicty
> hasn't quite cleaned up its architecture/philosophy enough for it to
> be clear to people who are trying to understand it and utilise it
> without delving into philosophical debates.

It seems pretty clear to me and many others in my experience,
certainly not a debacle.

>
> Cheers,
>
> Peter
>

Ian

Re: Contd: [pedantic-web] question about sioc / foaf usage

[Peter Ansell]

2009/12/1 Ian Davis :
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Kingsley Idehen
>  wrote:
>
>>
>> If you lookup Linked Data from spaces associated with myself of OpenLink you
>> will see use the aforementioned property re. missing relation. Also, you may
>> also find out that few people added the missing triple to their RDF files
>> after nudges from me.
>>
>> I hope I've made things clearer?
>
> I've read this thread and I don't understand the fuss. Some people
> aren't linking the document to the data it contains so we should
> encourage them to. Don't know why that is characterised as a debacle.
>

The necessary declaration of "document" as distinct, and yet necessary
for the definition of "data", and the necessity of different URI's for
these two concepts, are fundamental sticking points for many people.

If the HTTP web no longer existed (or the internet connection was
temporarily down), the discussion about document versus data would be
mute. Simple RDF Triple database queries, that do not rely on HTTP
communication, have no necessary need to refer to the
Document/Artifact. Only "data" would exist in the RDF triples (unless
you deliberately blur the division using the notion of foaf:Document
via foaf:primaryTopic for instance). Hence the debacle with saying
that Document is a necessary element to understand and use RDF data
linked together using resolvable HTTP URI's when to many it is just an
artifact that doesn't influence, and shouldn't need to semantically
interfere with, the data/information content that is actually being
referenced.

In the long term, I see it as introducing a permanent link from a
semantic RDF (or other similar format) universe to the current
document segregated web that wouldn't be there if everyone shared
their RDF information through some other system, and for example only
used the URI verbatim to do queries on some global hashtable/index
somewhere where there was no concept of document at the native RDF
level. The definition of Linked Data doesn't specifically say that
HTTP URI's have to be resolved using HTTP GET requests over TCP port
80 using DNS for an intermediate host name lookup as necessary, so why
should it require the notion of documents to be necessary containers
for data pretty much just because that is how HTTP GET semantics work.

I characterise it as a debacle because it has been a recurring
discussion for many years and shows that the semantic communicty
hasn't quite cleaned up its architecture/philosophy enough for it to
be clear to people who are trying to understand it and utilise it
without delving into philosophical debates.

Cheers,

Peter

Re: Contd: [pedantic-web] question about sioc / foaf usage

[Ian Davis]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Kingsley Idehen
 wrote:

>
> If you lookup Linked Data from spaces associated with myself of OpenLink you
> will see use the aforementioned property re. missing relation. Also, you may
> also find out that few people added the missing triple to their RDF files
> after nudges from me.
>
> I hope I've made things clearer?

I've read this thread and I don't understand the fuss. Some people
aren't linking the document to the data it contains so we should
encourage them to. Don't know why that is characterised as a debacle.

Ian

Re: Contd: [pedantic-web] question about sioc / foaf usage

[Kingsley Idehen]

Ian Davis wrote:

I assume you've noticed the dearth of RDF examples that include descriptions
of RDF files that are distinct, but connected, to the file contents.



People have been doing that for years using foaf:primaryTopic. See
example at http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_PersonalProfileDocument
and substitute URIs for the nodeIDs

Ian

  

Ian,

Dearth:
noun [in sing. ]
a scarcity or lack of something : there is a dearth of evidence. See 
note at lack .


I never said: non existent. A majority of RDF files don't express the 
aforementioned relationship.


If you lookup Linked Data from spaces associated with myself of OpenLink 
you will see use the aforementioned property re. missing relation. Also, 
you may also find out that few people added the missing triple to their 
RDF files after nudges from me.


I hope I've made things clearer?

--


Regards,

Kingsley Idehen   Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com

Re: Contd: [pedantic-web] question about sioc / foaf usage

[Ian Davis]

>
> I assume you've noticed the dearth of RDF examples that include descriptions
> of RDF files that are distinct, but connected, to the file contents.

People have been doing that for years using foaf:primaryTopic. See
example at http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_PersonalProfileDocument
and substitute URIs for the nodeIDs

Ian

Re: Contd: [pedantic-web] question about sioc / foaf usage

[Kingsley Idehen]

Peter Ansell wrote:

2009/12/1 Hogan, Aidan :
  

Hi Kingsley,



For the sake of others.

How do you describe and information resource via an RDF graph that is
supposed to play well with Linked Data principles?
  

If I understand the intent of your question, you are asking how an
information resource should be identified -- i.e., what's a suitable
URI? To clarify first: what's wrong with -- e.g. -- simply [1]? For me,
this fits well with [2]. How does it not play well with Linked Data
principles? Referring back to earlier:



using [1] as the information-resource URI to represent the document
returned is perfectly okay according to linked data principles:

   1. Use URIs as names for things [yep]
   2. Use HTTP URIs so that people can look up those names. [yep]
   3. When someone looks up a URI, provide useful information, using
the standards (RDF, SPARQL) [yep]
   4. Include links to other URIs so that they can discover more
  

things.


[not directly applicable]
  

Cheers,
Aidan

[1] http://johnbreslin.com/blog/index.php?sioc_type=site
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#id-resources





My impression of the entire debacle is that it is designed to make
sure that every document has at least two identifiers so that
reasoning systems do not have to distinguish between details about the
delivery of the document, and details contained in the document. Some
rdf harvesting engines want to be able to say 
 "200", for example, and the flow on
effect is that you now apparently can't use the documents URL for any
other purpose because the extra httpStatusCode triple may get added
into the RDF store without a different graph URI. If the statements
are merged in a single graph, there is no way to separate it after
that point because reasoning engines, in this case description logics,
weren't designed with this multiplicity in mind. Interestingly,
everyone is okay with adding  
"303", because that particular magic value is judged to be immaterial
to the nature of the URL.

That is just my impression of the underlying cause for this entire
debacle without any of the philosophical details about the nature of
the document etc., that always pop up.
  

Peter,

My real grip comes down to the fact that there seems to be an unwritten 
rule re. Documents i.e., they aren't material data objects (entities, 
data items, resources) re. RDF. Proof of this rule is demonstrated by 
the plethora of RDF files that don't assert any relationship between the 
RDF file (Data Container) and its structured content (Data Items).


In addition, re. the  HTTP system that drives the Web, when you issue an 
HTTP GET against a resource (i.e. a file; I don't buy the Information 
Resource moniker one bit), a server issues a 200 OK to indicate its 
ability to serve a User Agent the resource it requested. Naturally, this 
isn't how a Data Identifier works, since Identifiers are independent of: 
location, values, structure (this are very old Identity principles from 
way before the Web), you have a 303 if the Identifier looks like a 
normal resource URL or you leverage the Fragment Identifier component of 
the URL by taking the remainder of the URL as the address of the 
document containing the description of the HTTP URIs referent.


Thus, as I've stated before (elsewhere), in my world view, all data 
objects are equal i.e., if something is worth describing (e.g. a 
Document or Data Container or File), it deserves an Identifier, and in 
the context of HTTP based data networks -what Linked Data is about - it 
means: a Generic HTTP scheme URI.


I assume you've noticed the dearth of RDF examples that include 
descriptions of RDF files that are distinct, but connected, to the file 
contents.




Cheers,

Peter


  



--


Regards,

Kingsley Idehen   Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com

Re: Contd: [pedantic-web] question about sioc / foaf usage

[Peter Ansell]

2009/12/1 Hogan, Aidan :
> Hi Kingsley,
>
>> For the sake of others.
>>
>> How do you describe and information resource via an RDF graph that is
>> supposed to play well with Linked Data principles?
>
> If I understand the intent of your question, you are asking how an
> information resource should be identified -- i.e., what's a suitable
> URI? To clarify first: what's wrong with -- e.g. -- simply [1]? For me,
> this fits well with [2]. How does it not play well with Linked Data
> principles? Referring back to earlier:
>
>> using [1] as the information-resource URI to represent the document
>> returned is perfectly okay according to linked data principles:
>>
>>    1. Use URIs as names for things [yep]
>>    2. Use HTTP URIs so that people can look up those names. [yep]
>>    3. When someone looks up a URI, provide useful information, using
>> the standards (RDF, SPARQL) [yep]
>>    4. Include links to other URIs so that they can discover more
> things.
>> [not directly applicable]
>
> Cheers,
> Aidan
>
> [1] http://johnbreslin.com/blog/index.php?sioc_type=site
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#id-resources
>
>

My impression of the entire debacle is that it is designed to make
sure that every document has at least two identifiers so that
reasoning systems do not have to distinguish between details about the
delivery of the document, and details contained in the document. Some
rdf harvesting engines want to be able to say 
 "200", for example, and the flow on
effect is that you now apparently can't use the documents URL for any
other purpose because the extra httpStatusCode triple may get added
into the RDF store without a different graph URI. If the statements
are merged in a single graph, there is no way to separate it after
that point because reasoning engines, in this case description logics,
weren't designed with this multiplicity in mind. Interestingly,
everyone is okay with adding  
"303", because that particular magic value is judged to be immaterial
to the nature of the URL.

That is just my impression of the underlying cause for this entire
debacle without any of the philosophical details about the nature of
the document etc., that always pop up.

Cheers,

Peter