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

Re: [ALL] agenda telecon 14 Dec

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:47:16 -0600
Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A8CCA8A2-7BD1-4E46-9033-C74C471932FE@ihmc.us>
To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>

On Dec 13, 2011, at 5:39 PM, David Wood wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> The one thing that gnaws at me about this proposal is "The default graph does not have a name".  I feel (as opposed to "think") that it should be "The default graph MAY not have a name".

You do mean MAY not, not MAY NOT, right? So this is synonymous with "The default graph MAY be nameless" , right?

> 
> It is not clear to me how to name the default graph in the case where it may have one.
> 
> Also, should an RDF Dataset be allowed to be placed within another RDF Dataset?

What would that mean? Would the 'inner' dataset have a name? What then would be the name of a graph inside that inner dataset? (Do you need two IRIs to be concatenated?) Wouldn't this require a quint store rather than a quad store?

>  If so, then the definition of an RDF Dataset should be appended to include "zero or more RDF Datasets".  Can someone suggest why such recursion is desired or why not?  

I think just defining it clearly would be a nightmare. Unless there is a very good reason to have it, I suggest not having it. Adding this will add months of extra work to the WG's activities.

Pat

> One thing that occurs to me is I may wish to create a collection of graphs, some of which may already have been grouped by someone else.  This would allow RDF Datasets to be used in a way similar to database views.
> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Dec 13, 2011, at 17:03, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> 
>> On 13 Dec 2011, at 20:54, Guus Schreiber wrote:
>>> The main thing we seem to be in limbo about is the GRAPHS debate. I suggest we devote the meeting to this theme. I have included in the agenda some discussion topics that came up in recent telecons, plus the email of Andy on TriG examples.  I suggest we also have a meta-discussion on what our options are for getting consensus.
>> 
>> I suggest a straw poll:
>> 
>> [[
>> PROPOSAL: Close all graph model+semantics issues by accepting the RDF Datasets design [1] as the data model, and by adding no new semantics.
>> ]]
>> 
>> Knowing who can't live with this minimalist approach would be a form of progress IMO.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Richard
>> 
>> 
>> [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#section-multigraph
> 
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 01:50:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:46 GMT