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

Re: Three solution designs to the first three Graphs use cases

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:05:57 +0000
Message-ID: <4F228515.2000805@epimorphics.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org


On 27/01/12 10:35, Ivan Herman wrote:
>
> On Jan 27, 2012, at 10:33 , Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 27/01/12 03:45, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 11:09 +0000, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>> On 04/01/12 19:23, David Wood wrote:
>>>>> Thanks, Sandro.  That's very helpful.
>>>>>
>>>>> It might be useful to consider augmenting TriG syntax to
>>>>> support your third solution (explicitly naming relations).
>>>>> I'd be quite happy with that.
>>>>
>>>> What would the data model be?
>>>
>>> I think: an RDF graph which can have other RDF graphs as values
>>> of its triples.  All these graphs would be subgraphs of some
>>> greater graph, so they can share b-nodes.
>>>
>>> (This is what cwm has had implemented since 2001, I think.)
>>
>> I thought this WG wasn't going there (graph literals).
>>
>> Personally, I see graph literals as the clean answer but it is RDF
>> 2 (+).  RDF 1.1 is, to me, incremental improvements within the
>> current abstract data model.  Datatyped literals  (e.g. "<s>  <p>
>> <o>"^^rdf:graphNTriples) are unwieldy and might block doing graph
>> literals properly in RDF 2+.
>>
>
> I am not convinced it is such a huge jump and, if this is the only
> way to have a clean way forward, we may have to do this. The
> datatyped literals may be a way forward and, after all, the trig
> version of using '{' may be considered as a syntactic sugar for a
> datatyped literal...
>
>
> Ivan

What happens to existing quad stores?

	Andy
Received on Friday, 27 January 2012 11:06:23 GMT

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