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

Re: [GRAPH] graph deadlock?

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 09:24:35 +0100
Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <9B8D07B0-C500-4384-B6AB-2477831E7FE6@w3.org>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>

On Dec 20, 2011, at 02:40 , Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> On 12/17/2011 7:37 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> 
>> (1) RDF Datasets. It consists of labelled graphs: (G, l), where l is an URI. (Some raised the possibility to use literals for 'l', but I think there is a consensus to use URI-s). There is no semantic relationship between 'G' and 'l', so something like (with an ad-hoc syntax here):
>> 
>>    ( {a:b c:d e:f}, mailto:ivan@w3.org }
>> 
>> is a perfectly o.k. labelled graph in an RDF Dataset
>> 
>> It seems that most (all?) quad stores fall into this category as well as the datasets in SPARQL
>> 
>> (2) Named Graphs. It is a special RDF dataset, where the label 'l' is a (HTTP?) URI with an additional behaviour: if that URI is poked (GET-d) then it results in the serialization of a Graph whose parsing yields an equivalent graph to 'G'. It is the right/good framework for, say, Linked Data, etc.
>> 
> 
> It seems to me that we can make a lot of progress by exploring the common ground between these as test cases:
> e.g. do we allow the same URI twice.
> 
> I would have thought that most people would be unhappy with:
> 
> A)
> 
> { ( {a:b c:d e:f}, mailto:ivan@w3.org ), ( {}, mailto:ivan@w3.org ) }


But what about

{ ( {a:b c:d e:f}, mailto:ivan@w3.org ),
  ( {}, mailto:jeremy@topquandrant.com ) }

I see two issues here: (1) the usage of the mailto URI (2) the unicity of the label.

I am not sure people would reject the second example, while I think the first one should...


Ivan



> 
> and also with
> 
> 
> 
> B)
> 
> { ( {a:b c:d e:f}, http://example.org/consensus ), ( {}, http://example.org/consensus
> ) }
> 
> If that is the case, then we have moved forward (even if only by a little)
> And so I would like to propose these two test cases for consideration at the telecon.
> 
> Proposal: the RDF 1.1 Recommendation will not recommend the use of either (A) or (B)
> 
> 
> Once we have agreed on one test case, then we can try for a second - rather than the somewhat boring threads of conversation: running over the same old ground, and how we found the same old fears ...
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2011 08:24:46 GMT

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