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

Re: graph names as third argument

From: Charles Greer <cgreer@marklogic.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 11:46:22 -0800
Message-ID: <4EB9870E.1040205@marklogic.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
CC: Charles Greer <Charles.Greer@marklogic.com>, William Waites <wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk>, "phayes@ihmc.us" <phayes@ihmc.us>, "public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>



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.



Might there be a difference between the use of the quad therefore in 
interchange (lean toward/require standard usage) vs within a triple 
store?  Is this within the scope of RDF spec?

-- 
Charles Greer
Senior Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
charles.greer@marklogic.com
Phone: +1 707 408 3277
www.marklogic.com

This e-mail and any accompanying attachments are confidential. The information is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any review, disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this e-mail communication by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately by returning this message to the sender and delete all copies. Thank you for your cooperation.
Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2011 19:46:52 GMT

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