W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > April 2011

Re: Turtle support for Multiple Graphs, suggestion

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 18:19:34 +0100
Message-ID: <4D960926.8000209@webr3.org>
To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
CC: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Hi Lee,

Nothing I guess, other than lending to a single, simple, coherent 
specification and single format which supports virtually all use-cases 

That said, I also see many benefits in keeping two distinct formats 
(such as TriG and Turtle), since I /really really really/ don't want to 
be following my nose around the web to documents containing quads or 
multiple graphs, and perhaps selfishly, don't really want the pain that 
will induce in API land.

So, although I suggested it and would maintain that it may well be 
easier for newcomers to understand than TriG or N-Quads, I really don't 
like the idea of having a single format myself :D and see anything Quad 
or Multiple Graph as being related to data store synchronization and 
data dumps, rather than to RDF.



Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> Hi Nathan,
> What would be the benefit of inventing something like this compared to 
> using TriG which is similar in spirit and already in (some) use?
> Lee
> On 4/1/2011 12:10 PM, Nathan wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> Just a quick, mini proposal wrt supporting multiple "named graphs" in
>> turtle.
>> We could add a new keyword and directive, @graph (or @namespace), who's
>> value was an IRI. This would be a minimal change to the grammar, for
>> example:
>> @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
>> @prefix dc: <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/> .
>> @prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> .
>> # default graph
>> <http://example.org/bob> dc:publisher "Bob" .
>> <http://example.org/alice> dc:publisher "Alice" .
>> @graph <http://example.org/bob> .
>> _:a foaf:name "Bob" .
>> _:a foaf:mbox <mailto:bob@oldcorp.example.org> .
>> @graph <http://example.org/alice> .
>> _:a foaf:name "Alice" .
>> _:a foaf:mbox <mailto:alice@work.example.org> .
>> I believe it's pretty self explanatory, so will spare getting in to any
>> heavy details, other than a couple of basic questions:
>> - What would the scope of @prefix and @base declarations be?
>> (either no change / file wide, or with a scope of the nearest "@graph")
>> - Would the value be an IRI, or an absolute-IRI?
>> (my own preference would be the latter).
>> Best,
>> Nathan
Received on Friday, 1 April 2011 17:20:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:58 UTC