Re: Proposed Charter for Property Graphs WG

As I have said more than once, it is still unclear to me what we would
charter a WG to do that would be both beneficial and get broad adoption by
graph technology vendors and open source practitioners. I think it is far
to soon to be considering chartering a WG and I do not support proposing
one until we have a much more solid idea of what the problems are that such
a WG would address and that the community at large would find valuable.
Cheers
Kelvin

Kelvin R. Lawrence
Distinguished Engineer & CTO, Software Standards
Member of the IBM Academy of Technology (http://www.ibm.com/ibm/academy)



From:	Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
To:	public-propertygraphs@w3.org,
Date:	01/31/2014 11:07 AM
Subject:	Re: Proposed Charter for Property Graphs WG



On 30/01/14 18:41, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2014, at 6:40 AM, Ashok Malhotra
> <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> I took a stab at a proposed charter for the Property Graphs WG:
>> https://www.w3.org/community/propertygraphs/wiki/Recommendation

...
> I do think that we should consider multi-valued properties, and
> possibly ordered links. Multi-valued properties could be ordered or
> unordered and may or may not allow for repetition; this generally
> corresponds to RDF Seq/Collection/List, Bag and Set, although it
> doesn't seem that there's any provision for shared node and literal
> collections.

I agree.  From the RDF experience, data structures do matter.

I don't think these form part of current property graphs; it is at least
unclear to me.  While I haven't found any examples, by one reading there
is no constraint on the value of an attribute (node or link).

The lack of a solid proposal as WG input with prior implementations of
such features in use for real suggests to me that the timescale proposed
is optimistic.

		 Andy