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

Re: (A PRIORITY) Exchanging the contents of RDF stores

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:50:02 +0000
Message-ID: <4F2BE60A.7050306@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org

On 01/02/12 19:10, Pat Hayes wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2012, at 6:30 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs-UC#.28A_PRIORITY.29_Exchanging_the_contents_of_RDF_stores
>>One of our prioritised UC is "Exchanging the contents of RDF stores".
>> I'd like to prose that TriG, without additional semantic or
>> annotation assumptions, meets this UC.  The WG should resolve to
>> cover this usage pattern.
>> This codifies the situation where no annotations of the graph
>> tagging relationship exists.
>> It implies that quads are not an internal implementation matter but
>> a way systems can exchange data.
> I would submit that in this case, the semantics does need to be
> specified with more precision than it is at present. So I strongly
> resist this proposal as stated, with the inclusion of the phrase
> "without additional semantic ... assumptions". With that phrase
> removed, I would support it.
> Pat


Q1/ Are you making this case for just TriG or for all quads forms?

Q2/ Can the semantics be specified in a different document?

We have things like the DBpedia dumps already online:


To have TriG, the basic syntax, not being able to express basic dumps in 
the way N-Quads can is possible but its going to place an education cost 
on explaining that N-Quads -> TriG can't be done without additional

I would like to see vocabulary on top of the basic syntax, not requiring 
it's use.  Like the time example we had in the telecon, sometimes, there 
will be data without the full modelling details.

Received on Friday, 3 February 2012 13:50:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:03 UTC