- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:37:59 +0200
- To: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
- Cc: "public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 29 Sep 2011, at 16:42, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
> A such, I consider the default graph to be a *property of the SPARQL
> engine* used to query the data, rather than a property of the data itself.
What's the problem with considering the default graph a property of the dataset?
Use cases, examples, test cases?
You present your personal opinion, and your preferred solution, and muse about how the non-preferred solution came about historically. I find none of this even remotely compelling unless some practical problems arise from including the concept of a default graph in the RDF spec.
> Imagine a world where SPARQL would have defined, as part of a dataset,
> the notion of *default resource*, so that I could write
>
> SELECT ?friend WHERE {
> foaf:knows ?friend
> }
>
> Would we feel compelled to include the default resource in RDF Concepts?
This is a distraction here, but yes, the notion of a specially marked “default resource” (which would likely be the base URI in graphs deployed on the web) would actually be extremely useful because it would provide a natural and unique way of chopping RDF graphs into trees for serialization.
Best,
Richard
Received on Friday, 30 September 2011 09:38:35 UTC