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

Re: [ALL] agenda telecon 14 Dec

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:08:38 +0000
Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <127F0A76-3C16-45D3-8E01-B28015251ADE@garlik.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
On 2011-12-14, at 01:40, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> [[
>> 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?)

I don't know how other people feel on the subject, but my impression that that using URIs to "label" a graph is such common behaviour that writing anything contradictory in a document is just tilting at windmills.

- Steve

-- 
Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 13:09:24 GMT

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