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

Re: three kinds of dataset

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 12:44:08 -0600
Cc: RDF-WG WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <FA8610B1-E02C-427E-8C0E-347757F2750E@ihmc.us>
To: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>

On Mar 6, 2012, at 10:33 AM, Guus Schreiber wrote:

> Pat,
> 
> Thanks, very nice categorization. I propose to use this as discussion point for tomorrow's telecon to see whether we can reach consensus on these three views. I interpret this as a top-down description of the same/similar distinction Sandro was trying to achieve when he talked about semantic distinctions required to cover the archetypical use cases [1].
> 
> Guus
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs-Designs
> 

I should have done this, sorry. Brief summary.

1.2.1 = Case 1,
1.2.2  = Case 2 if the truth of the triples is considered time-dependent (which seems likely), otherwise case 1. 
1.2.3 = Case 1.
3. = Case 3.
4 = Case 3
5 = Case 3, I think. (Because of the self-reference implied by the < >. Basically, any time we use the IRI machinery to refer to a graph in an RDF triple then we are using case 3.)
6 I am really not sure about. It uses case 3 for sure, but it might also be using case 2. 

Pat (in haste)

------------------------------------------------------------
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 Tuesday, 6 March 2012 18:44:47 GMT

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