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

Re: [GRAPH] graph deadlock?

From: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 12:51:00 -0500
Message-ID: <20111219.125100.1613227550875629782.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: <cgreer@marklogic.com>
CC: <ivan@w3.org>, <phayes@ihmc.us>, <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
From: Charles Greer <cgreer@marklogic.com>
Subject: Re: [GRAPH] graph deadlock?
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:18:40 -0600

>> I am not sure I understand. An application may declare whether it uses
> Datasets or RDF Graphs. If Datasets, then only labels are used for
> URI-s, which I believe is the way quadstores, for examples, are used
> already, as well as SPARQL datasets. For Named Graphs that may be used,
> for example, in the case provenance, applications know about the extra
> behaviour of the label (if GET-t, then bla bla bla...) which is then
> required by the standard.
>> Ivan
> +1
> What I'm reading here is that named graphs are a special kind of label 
> that explicitly provides for provenance and resolution.

I would be interested in seeing just where and how named graphs
explicity provide for provenance and resolution.


> Charles

Received on Monday, 19 December 2011 17:51:17 UTC

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