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

[Graph] abstract syntax for dealing with multiple graphs

From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 14:27:17 +0100
Message-ID: <4F576235.1090506@emse.fr>
To: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
I'd like here to leave the conversation on semantics aside and see what 
we can do about the abstract syntax that we want to allow for dealing 
with multiple graphs.

There seems to be 3 categories of abstract syntaxes in what has been 
used as examples so far:

  1) use triples with a "graph-literal-like" syntax:

:g :r { :s :p :o }

or

:g :r ":s :p :o"^^:graph

*Pros:* it's an RDF Graph. No new data model is needed. One just need a 
datatype for graph-literals. The concrete syntax is like RDF.
*Cons:* (most) current implementations do not recognised this.
*Issue:* is it really a literal? or a new construct? Are any relation :r 
allowed here? do we define a fixed set of relation that can be used with 
this syntax? What happens when graph literals are embedded in graph 
literals?
*My opinion:* preferably no. This introduces a new concrete domain (RDF 
graphs) which is difficult to deal with (e.g., no standard 
cannonicalisation). We have no pragmatic experience with this.


  2) Datasets, e.g.,

:g { :s :p :o . :a :b :c . }

*Pros:* datasets are already a standard data model, as part of the 
SPARQL rec. TriG would be a natural concrete syntax, and it's already 
supported by some implementation. "Normal" RDF graphs are immediately 
accessed via the graph "names".
*Cons:* how to define the semantics of datasets? It's a new data model 
that would need to be introduced in the concepts of RDF.
*Issue:* are literals / bnodes allowed as "graph names". Are default 
graphs allowed as in SPARQL?
*My opinion:* yes we can. See the dataset proposal on the wiki.


  3) N-Quads (or a quad-based syntax),

:s :p :o :g .
:a :b :c :d .

*Pros:* straigforward extension of RDF (triples with a parameter). 
Nquads as an obvious concrete syntax. Already used and implemented in 
some tools.
*Cons:* relationship with "normal" RDF graph less clear than with datasets.
*Issue:* what is allowed in 4th position? Do "quad-graphs" replace RDF 
1.0 graphs or is it a new, distinct data model for dealing with multiple 
graph?
*My opinion:* yes as well, in addition to Datasets. In any case, 
datasets can be transformed isomorphically into quads and vice versa.

The difference is that datasets are sets of pairs, while quad-graphs are 
sets of quadruples. Each one has its own advantages. I would like that 
both are presented, and both a TriG-like syntax and a Quad-based syntax 
be standardised. NQuads could as well be a standard syntax for 
exchanging pure RDF graphs, by simply ommitting the fourth value.


Best,
-- 
Antoine Zimmermann
ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol
École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne
158 cours Fauriel
42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2
France
Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 83 36
Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66
http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2012 13:27:25 GMT

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