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

Re: dataset semantics

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 13:15:52 -0500
Message-ID: <4EECDC58.1010004@thefigtrees.net>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
CC: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 12/17/2011 12:41 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 12/17/11 10:58 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> BTW, what was the rationale for having a nameless graph in a dataset
>> in the first place? Seems to me that the SPARQL design would be
>> improved if all graphs were required to have some kind of name, and
>> the query was obliged to use the name. After all, this is how the rest
>> of the Web works.
> Yes, and that's the case in our implementation. If you want a default
> graph you explicitly designate a given named graph as such. That's it.
> Otherwise, you have queries scoped to all graphs or specific lists of
> named graphs in a FROM or FROM NAMED clause.

Yes, Anzo does things this same way.

> In our world view SPARQL named graphs are just named partitions that
> hold 3-tuple based record collections. Depending on use-case, we can
> make statements about named graphs using their IRIs.

Yes, Anzo agrees with this world view as well.

Lee

> Trying to marry the named graph world views of SPARQL and RDF is a
> mercurial pursuit. You also have the dbms/store world views to factor
> into the mix and that only makes it more mercurial to pin down. In our
> case, if more granularity is sought e.g., making statements about
> statements we do so courtesy of terms from reification oriented ontologies.
>
>
>
Received on Saturday, 17 December 2011 18:16:19 GMT

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