- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 10:23:50 +0000
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 7 Mar 2011, at 09:56, 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). What I'm looking for is an example, not a definition :-) I don't like talking about this in the abstract. Can you come up with something that involves Alice and Bob, and, maybe, an order for pizza or something like that? Richard
Received on Monday, 7 March 2011 10:30:35 UTC