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

Re: [GRAPH] graph deadlock?

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 22:28:59 -0600
Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1CDE2788-9FD2-44A7-8046-C6CB594D52D6@ihmc.us>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>

On Dec 19, 2011, at 7:40 PM, 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 think there is a general consensus that this should be prohibited, no matter what ones views are on the "denotation/label" issue. 

So, whats your next test case?

Pat

> 
> 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 ) }
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Wednesday, 21 December 2011 04:29:33 GMT

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