Re: A radical proposal.

• From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
• Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:33:25 +0100
• To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
• Message-ID: <503339C5.4000506@epimorphics.com>

On 20/08/12 16:30, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> If it wouldn't cause SPARQL too many problems, I'd suggest we should do
> the same with dataset, and even allow a dataset to be a kind of graph, I
> think, so that the world at large can use the word term "RDF dataset"
> for any collection of RDF data (whether or not it's segmented into named
> graphs).

That would be problematic.  "RDF Dataset" is a specifically defined 
term.  "Dataset" we can be loose about (c.f. VoiD) ; "RDF Dataset" is 
stressing the tie to a particular definition.  You might as well mix 
properties and triples if you're going to mix things of different "shape".

 Andy

Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2012 07:34:29 UTC