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

Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 02:13:10 -0400
Message-ID: <4F72ABF6.20707@thefigtrees.net>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
CC: public-rdf-wg <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Hi Sandro,

First, thanks very much for this.

Second, I've read through the proposal and -- at least on initial 
consideration -- strongly support it.

Third, I do have a comment/question:

In the Syntax section, you write:

"""
ISSUE: maybe, for human readability, we can allow graphs to be spread 
throughout the document, so "<u1> { <a> <b> 1 } <u1> { <a> <b> 2 }" 
would parse to the same dataset as "<u1> { <a> <b> 1. <a> <b> 2 }"
"""

But the rest of the wiki page seems to preclude this (e.g. 
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Graphs_Design_6.1#Test_10). Perhaps 
this test is talking about the abstract syntax, post-parsing?

We strongly support allowing graphs "to be spread throughout the 
document" in the way that the "ISSUE: ..." comment suggests. We do this 
all the time when writing out large data sets to disk, as it is often 
impractical to write all of the statements for a particular graph at the 
same point within a trig file.

Dare I ask what the domain of rdf:hasGraph is? Is it anything meaningful 
/ name-able? Is it a "graph label" (which is not disjoint with graphs)? 
Happy to unask this if I should. :-)

thanks,
Lee

On 3/27/2012 10:23 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> I've written up design 6 (originally suggested by Andy) in more
> detail.  I've called in 6.1 since I've change/added a few details that
> Andy might not agree with.  Eric has started writing up how the use
> cases are addressed by this proposal.
>
> This proposal addresses all 15 of our old open issues concerning graphs.
> (I'm sure it will have its own issues, though.)
>
> The basic idea is to use trig syntax, and to support the different
> desired relationships between labels and their graphs via class
> information on the labels.  In particular, according to this proposal,
> in this trig document:
>
>     <u1>  {<a>  <b>  <c>  }
>
> ... we only know that<u1>  is some kind of label for the RDF Graph<a>
> <b>  <c>, like today.  However, in his trig document:
>
>     {<u2>  a rdf:Graph }
>     <u2>  {<a>  <b>  <c>  }
>
> we know that<u2>  is an rdf:Graph and, what's more, we know that<u2>
> actually is the RDF Graph {<a>  <b>  <c>  }.  That is, in this case, we
> know that URL "u2" is a name we can use in RDF to refer to that g-snap.
>
> Details are here: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Graphs_Design_6.1
>
> That page includes answers to all the current GRAPHS issues, including
> ISSUE-5, ISSUE-14, etc.
>
> Eric has started going through Why Graphs and adding the examples as
> addressed by Proposal 6.1:
> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Why_Graphs_6.1
>
>       -- Sandro (with Eric nearby)
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2012 06:13:41 GMT

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