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

Re: graph names as third argument

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 21:05:03 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFNgM+a_gtCnnLbPg72Yv9mivn_gkdO5HkqJQi7tTFO5Q+Mp+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: Charles Greer <cgreer@marklogic.com>, 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>
On 8 November 2011 20:57, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 11:46 -0800, Charles Greer wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>>
>
> It seems to me that standards can talk about what people do on the open
> Web, or how off-the-shelf software behaves, but what folks do in the
> privacy of their own intranet is up to them.  Of course, I think it
> usually turns out to be a mistake to vary too much from public practice,
> since eventually one usually wants to connect to other folks.
>
> So, I'd like the standards to focus on what works for interoperability,
> knowing that people can and will ignore the standards in private.
>
> One thing that's not clear to me is whether we need to interoperate
> using different notions of what the fourth column means.

One aspect to bear in mind here is the strong relationship between
Turtle, an interchange standard, and SPARQL, a querying standard.
Since they are so close, it seems odd somehow for the former to be
more portable than the latter. Even though that is effectively the
case as of today...

cheers,

Dan
Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2011 20:05:37 GMT

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