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

[GRAPH] RDF WG Issues Relating to the Graph TF

From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 12:46:20 -0400
Message-Id: <AE4F87F1-DFF3-4C32-8555-1A99EC3130F6@3roundstones.com>
To: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Hi all,

The open issues relating to the Graph TF are at [1].

We have had some substantial discussion regarding the following, and perhaps the beginning of a consensus.  I propose to discuss them at the ftf:
  ISSUE-30 How does SPARQL's notion of RDF dataset relate our notion of multiple graphs?
  ISSUE-29 Do we support SPARQL's notion of "default graph"?
  ISSUE-32 Can we identify both g-boxes and g-snaps?

These two seem related to me.  Should they be combined?
  ISSUE-15 What is the relationship between the IRI and the triples in a dataset/quad-syntax/etc
  ISSUE-14 What is a named graph and what should we call it?

These might also be collapsed?
  ISSUE-5 Should we define Graph Literal datatypes?
  ISSUE-35: Should there be an rdf:Graph construct, or something like that?

The one most  likely to continue to cause us trouble seems to me to be this one:
  ISSUE-33 Do we provide a way to refer to sub-graphs and/or individual triples?

What do others think?

This completes my (apparently unrecorded) action item from the last telecon.

Regards,
Dave

[1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/open?sort=product
Received on Monday, 10 October 2011 16:47:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:45 GMT