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

Re: Generic "Graph" Use Cases

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 09:56:09 +0000
Message-ID: <4D74ABB9.30404@webr3.org>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
CC: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> On 6 Mar 2011, at 21:53, Nathan wrote:
>>>>> RDF datasets don't address the assertions about graphs UC very well.
>>>>> They can - with careful graph naming (naming the g-snap, not the g-box), the default graph can contain assertions about the properties of a graph, just like graph literals can be used for RDF datasets.  It's just there is "some assemble required".
>>>> There's a very critical detail here, the need to talk about a g-box, and the need to talk about a g-snap
>>> Just to be sure we're on the same page in this discussion, can you give an example for “talking about a g-box” and one for “talking about a g-snap”, in particular one where the distinction matters?
> 
> I'd still be very interested in seeing an example for “talking about a g-box” and one for “talking about a g-snap”, in particular one where the distinction matters.

talking about a g-box:
every use case where the subject/object of a triple is a graph name or 
an information resource (for instance, VoID).

talking about a g-snap:
every use case where the subject/object of a triple should be a set of 
triples. (everything from adding provenance, tracking changes, through 
to annotations).
Received on Monday, 7 March 2011 09:57:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:40 GMT