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

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

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 11:48:52 -0800
Cc: RDF-WG WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Message-Id: <5A6965EF-3F04-440E-BE41-AA5BA295E281@ihmc.us>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>

On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:50 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:

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

All of them, yes.

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

Oh, sure. 

I just meant, I think we have (the WG has) a responsibility, if we endorse any kind of quad-describing *interchange* notation - or the very idea of interchanging quads at all, in fact - then we have to bite the bullet and specify a semantics (or maybe several semantics) for quads. Alternatively, of course, if quads arent even in our RDF attention focus, we don't need to do that: but then we shouldnt be talking about them at all. 

> 
> We have things like the DBpedia dumps already online:
> 
> http://dbpedia.org/Downloads37
> 
> 
> 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.

Yes, I would like this also. So that various kinds of meaning can be switched on or off, or selected, by (relatively simple and easy-to-add) "switches" like a special triple or some such. But this is going to take some work in the basic RDF machinery to make it possible. 

Sorry, in haste, more later.

Pat

> 
> 	Andy
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Friday, 3 February 2012 19:49:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:47 GMT