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

Re: ISSUE-30: How does SPARQL's notion of RDF dataset relate our notion of multiple graphs?

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:21:25 +0200
Cc: public-rdf-wg Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Message-Id: <6394B075-D2C3-4BC6-9BD7-D523B37CC0F3@w3.org>
To: Mischa Tuffield <mischa.tuffield@garlik.com>

On Apr 19, 2011, at 13:07 , Mischa Tuffield wrote:

> Hi All, 
> <snip/>

>> and reserve the N-Quads and Trig as a syntax for RDF datasets.
> +1 to this.
> I find it important that the quad based serialisations are kept separate from the various triple-based RDF syntaxes . Ideally, the RDF will continue talking about triples (i.e. a minimum amount of change to the RDF Semantics), and the quad based serialisation will be standardised in order to allow interoperability between SPARQL stores. 

this is where the discussion on dataset and the resolution we passed on the nature of sparql dataset has an effect. *if* the goal of Trig is to serialize SPARQL stores, then this cannot (directly) be the same syntax that we might define (if we define it, that is) for named g-boxes.



Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 11:20:44 UTC

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