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

Re: RDF-ISSUE-38 (AZ): What new vocabulary should be added to RDF to talk about graphs? [RDF Graphs]

From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 17:39:30 +0200
Message-ID: <4DA9B832.4000007@insa-lyon.fr>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
CC: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Le 16/04/2011 17:05, Richard Cyganiak a écrit :
> Antoine,
>
> How is this different from ISSUE-35?

When I wrote this issue, I was actually thinking more about the 
relationships between graphs (like imports, subgraph, etc) rather than 
the class rdf:Graph so this issue is more about the vocabulary /around/ 
the notion of graph. I would not mind merging the two issues or 
rephrasing this one if it sounds too similar.


>
> Best,
> Richard
>
>
> On 15 Apr 2011, at 21:06, RDF Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> RDF-ISSUE-38 (AZ): What new vocabulary should be added to RDF to talk about graphs? [RDF Graphs]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/38
>>
>> Raised by: Antoine Zimmermann
>> On product: RDF Graphs
>>
>> If it is possible to assert statements about g-*, then we may need some additional vocabulary such as a class rdf:Graph and possibly relations between them such as graph imports, subgraph, equivalent graph, etc. and maybe a property that relates an instance of rdf:Graph to its content.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Saturday, 16 April 2011 15:39:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:41 GMT