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

Re: [ALL] agenda telecon 14 Dec

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:20:04 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFNgM+Z69rA9reSA45bzrEtsUpxYP4h8jdwOzCyTOYjfjBdPhQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 13 December 2011 23:03, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> 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.

> [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#section-multigraph

I can nearly live with it, although I'm interested in what Pat Hayes
pulls out of his hat, from his posts a few weeks ago around graphs.

Nitpicking time:

"An RDF Dataset is a collection of RDF graphs and comprises:
* Exactly one default graph, being an RDF graph. The default graph
does not have a name.
* Zero or more named graphs. Each named graph is a pair consisting of
an IRI (the graph name), and an RDF graph. Graph names are unique
within an RDF dataset."

Given RDF's open world baggage, it doesn't feel right starkly saying
that something "does not have a name". This is territory we've bounced
around with bnodes and literals before. Something might well have a
name, and that name might not be mentioned... (just as with bnodes in
plain RDF).

Maybe, "Exactly one default graph, being an RDF graph. The Dataset
does not provide any name for this graph."

By "live with it", I mean roughly "it would be progress to at least
standardise this far".

It's tempting to try to use this standardisation opportunity to
squeeze something like Gremlin/Tinkerpop's 'Property graphs" into RDF,
ie. something like
https://github.com/tinkerpop/gremlin/wiki/Defining-a-Property-Graph in
which graph edges are decorated with little extras. But I can't really
see a route to getting there...

Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 06:53:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:02 UTC