W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > June 2013

Re: bNodes as graph identifiers

From: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 20:43:06 +1000
Message-ID: <CAGYFOCQsMZ5__4Ywh8oRCbOaSMc51mpgvp5qKLhRaHntgA+Gqw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Cc: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, public-rdf-comments@w3.org
On 3 June 2013 20:28, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:

> On Monday, June 03, 2013 11:53 AM, Steve Harris wrote:
> > On 2013-06-01, at 03:46, Pat Hayes wrote:
> > >> * RDF is already too complex for people coming into it to learn
> > easily. Every
> > >> time we add a new feature to the language we increase the barrier to
> > entry.
> > >
> > > First, this does not change RDF. Second, allowing bnodes as graph
> > labels in datasets is not a "new feature", it is simply removing a
> > restriction. Arguably, it simplifies dataset syntax.
> >
> > If RDF tutorials, or specs don't mention this at all then we have no
> > need of this discussion.
> >
> > If they do, then it changes RDF.
> >
> > Saying it doesn't change RDF because the change in the logic is
> > small/non-existant is missing the point entirely.
>
> I think was Pat was trying to say is that datasets haven't been
> standardized
> till now. We are doing this in RDF 1.1. Thus it doesn't change RDF at all.
>


> Datasets simply didn't exist before RDF 1.1
>
>
TriG and N-Quads, not to mention the RDF applications working with SPARQL,
have been using "Named Graphs" for a long time and they will expect RDF-1.1
"Datasets" to be defined in a similar way. Just because people didn't use
the term "Datasets" doesn't mean they didn't exist.

Peter
Received on Monday, 3 June 2013 10:43:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:29:57 UTC