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

Re: [Graphs] Proposal: RDF Datasets

From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:14:35 +0200
Message-ID: <4E52725B.80404@liris.cnrs.fr>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
CC: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
As I promissed to Richard during the last TC, I'm reactivating the
thread on his proposal to "lift" the definition of RDF datasets into
from SPARQL to RDF concepts [1]

My main concern with this proposal is that it defines a somewhat complex
structure (the dataset) as a primitive concept in RDF. My gut feeling is
that we could instead define more basic concepts, on top of which SPARQL
datasets, SPARQL graph stores, and possibly other structures, could be
defined. In my understanding, this is what the g-* terminology was
aiming at.

In this perspective, back in June, I made an alternate proposal [2] for
which I got almost no feedback. In a nutshell, it provides a minimal
vocabulary for reifying RDF graphs into standard RDF, and sketches the
semantics of such a reification. From there, it illustrates how
multi-graphs syntaxes (such as Trig) and models (such as SPARQL
datasets) can be defined on top of it.

I know that Richard was concerned about several multi-graph models had
slight differences (e.g. can a BNode be used as a graph name), and his
solution was to endorse one of them and wait for the others to converge.
My proposal is rather to provide the building blocks for everyone to
describe their model in RDF itself, and leave it open for different
models to coexist, which is ok as long as they can all be expressed in
plain RDF.

  pa


[1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs/RDF-Datasets-Proposal
[2] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs/RDF-Quadless-Proposal
Received on Monday, 22 August 2011 15:15:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:44 GMT