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

Re: graph names as third argument

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 14:05:31 -0500
To: Charles Greer <cgreer@marklogic.com>
Cc: William Waites <wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk>, "phayes@ihmc.us" <phayes@ihmc.us>, "public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1320779131.10964.205.camel@waldron>
On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 10:09 -0800, Charles Greer wrote:
> 
> I'm not frankly sure if this is the place for this kind of input,
> being 
> new to the process, but I'd support a view of place #4 as 
> 'implementation dependent' so as to enable a wide variety of data
> store 
> types.

This is a fine place for this input.   I don't know if anyone's been
calling it "implementation dependent", but I think that's a perfectly
reasonable name for the status quo.

In contrast, I've been arguing for at least *allowing* people to use
standards for what the fourth column means, to allow useful
communication between systems.  For example, if we want to publish
licensing information about a database (set of triples), we need to be
able to name it in some unambiguous way.

    -- Sandro
Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2011 19:05:38 GMT

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