W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > April 2012

Re: Union or not union for the default graph...

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:45:16 +0100
Message-ID: <4F873EDC.70202@epimorphics.com>
To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
CC: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, "public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>


On 12/04/12 21:31, David Wood wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Perhaps we should provide a standard way for an RDF system to
> advertise how the default graph. That would be sufficient to plug the
> hole Ivan sees without forking the semantics, wouldn't it?
>
> Linked Data systems already advertise a lot via VoID. This wouldn't
> require much of an extension and needn't even be normative.

Description (using some kind of meta data language) is much better than
putting in the core architecture.

And the amount of work needed is nice as well:

http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-service-description/#sd-uniondefaultgraph

(A TriG syntax shortcut would be nice as well, but not necessary if 
compatibility with current de facto syntax is deemed more important)

	Andy
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2012 20:45:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:04 UTC