W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > April 2010

Re: [dcat] rdf graphs and documents

From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 18:19:02 -0600
Message-ID: <4BDA21F6.5050500@berkeley.edu>
To: William Waites <ww-keyword-okfn.193365@styx.org>
CC: Cory Casanave <cory-c@modeldriven.com>, public-egov-ig@w3.org, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
hello.

> We have rdf:subject, rdf:predicate, rdf:object but
> there is no such thing as rdf:graph to mention the fourth element. I've
> invented an equivalent, but does anyone know if there is such a
> predicate defined anywhere? Is it worth attempting to suggest an update
> to the core rdf vocabulary to have this added (also with a commensurate
> rdf:Graph class)?
> We are lacking in tools for talking about graphs in rdf itself it seems...

i think this is the grand debate about RDF2 and whether named graphs 
should become part of RDF itself. thanks for your thoughtful email, you 
described it much better than i was able to do it. the point is that RDF 
triples in the current RDF world have no coherence, you might find them 
in various "documents" at various URIs, or all in the same triple store; 
semantically, there is no difference. for metamodels with a "document" 
level, there is coherence, and it matters in which document you find a 
substructure of some data. this is what i wanted to say by saying that 
"RDF has no documents", but you explained it in a much better way. thanks!

cheers,

dret.
Received on Friday, 30 April 2010 00:20:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 30 April 2010 00:20:33 GMT