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

Re: [ALL] agenda telecon 14 Dec

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:07:49 +0000
Message-ID: <4EE86765.8030000@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org

On 13/12/11 23:39, 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".
> It is not clear to me how to name the default graph in the case where
> it may have one.

It may well be accessible to query via a URI:

{ :s :p :o }
:uri1 { :s :p :o }
:uri2 { :s :p :o }

in which case "it" (the graph value) is accessible via the default 
graph, and also the associations for :uri1 and :uri2.

> Also, should an RDF Dataset be allowed to be placed within another
> RDF Dataset?  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?  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.

Interesting.  Do you have a use case for this?

I have been thinking we have to bottom-out somewhere.  Graphs are 
primary in RDF so having RDF datasets as a grouping of graphs and 
stopping there (so it isn't recursively general) is the right place to stop.

The purist answer is

1/ Graph literals in RDF
2/ Naming graph literals

then there is no such restriction.

But that is such a fundamental change to deployed RDF that it's RDF 2, 
if it's RDF at all, not RDF 1.1.

> Regards, Dave

Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 09:08:19 UTC

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