- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:05:27 -0600
- To: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
There is an interesting discussion going on right now on public-rdf-dawg-comments under the subject line "Indirect Graph Identification" which may be relevant to our agenda. Thread starts at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2011Nov/0048.html Pat On Dec 13, 2011, at 7:40 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: > > On Dec 13, 2011, at 4:03 PM, 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. >> ]] >> > > But that design refers to 'named graphs', which already introduces new semantics (that is, semantics which goes beyond that defined in the RDF specs.) i would be delighted if we could agree to build named graph semantics into the RDF semantics. If that is what you are suggesting, then +1 from me. I wonder however if those who want to be free to use any IRI to, um, 'label' a graph in a triple store would be happy with this? (I was under the continuing impression that there was a consensus that this solution was unacceptable. Maybe this impression is now obsolete?) > > Pat > >> 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 > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 05:08:39 UTC