- From: Frans Knibbe | Geodan <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
- Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 17:13:56 +0100
- To: public-lod@w3.org
On 2012-01-04 16:54, Yrjana Rankka wrote: > On 1/4/12 17:42 , Yrjana Rankka wrote: >> On 1/4/12 17:00 , Kingsley Idehen wrote: >>>> >>> >>> Trouble is that there isn't consensus re. this matter. >>> >>> For instance, one could assume that the URI / IRI of a named graph >>> resolves to a description of said graph. That wouldn't really imply >>> all the triples in the named graph :-) >> >> Let's consider this situation: >> >> GRAPH <x> >> <s1> <p1> "val1"; >> <p2> "val2"; >> <p3> "val3". >> >> GRAPH <metadata> >> <x> dc:created "somedate"; >> dc:modified "someotherdate"; >> dc:creator "Zaphod Beeblebrox". >> >> A client dereferences <x> >> >> What would you expect to get? >> >> Cheers, >> > Oops. This was directed towards Frans, not Kingsley ;) In that case, let me reply :-) I was not really expecting anything in particular: data, metadata, or both. The background of my question is that I am trying to use a quad store, but I do not know how it should behave in this respect. Has Virtuoso made a decision on the matter? I can understand the option of returning a description of the graph, instead of its triples. In that way a named graph would behave like a data set, which is another collection of triples. I am sure the RDF WG is fully aware of the pros and cons of all options and I wish them much wisdom in finding a solution for the problem. For me things have become clearer. I did not know that the issue is still in debate. Regards, Frans
Received on Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:17:06 UTC