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

Re: Agenda 21 Dec 2011

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 23:21:50 -0500
To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1324095710.6252.1351.camel@waldron>
On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 16:36 -0500, David Wood wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> The agenda for 21 Dec 2011 is available at:
>   http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.12.21
> 
> We only have named graphs on the agenda at the moment.  Does anyone have other requests?  I will be unavailable on Monday and Tuesday, so it would be convenient if any agenda requests could be sent to me before then.  Thanks.

We could talk about the LEDP Workshop you co-chaired.  For me, it's
somewhat linked to named graphs -- it motivated my conversion from
g-boxes/Graph Containers to "Graph-State Resources" (GSRs).

For more on the workshop outcomes, see:
        
        "Advance Notice" to the W3C Advisory Committee
        http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp/2011Dec/0000.html
        
And for my thinking on GSR's (RDF+REST) right now, see:
        
        RDF Simple Data Interface Protocol - Level Zero
        http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/REST
        
For me, this forms a stronger foundation that g-boxes, because it's tied
to REST.  REST isn't perfect, either, of course.

(Of course, as I said, I'm at risk for Wednesday, depending on cell
phone reception, etc.   Still, maybe I can figure out some TriG
entailment tests....    Like, does this TriG document / dataset:

        { <a> <b> <c> }

entail this RDF graph:

    <a> <b> <c>.

I think it should, so we can have metadata in TriG, but other people
have disagreed.   How should we be gather test cases like this?

     -- Sandro
Received on Saturday, 17 December 2011 04:22:09 GMT

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