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

Re: Making progress on graphs

From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 23:09:07 +0200
Message-ID: <4FB022F3.5090701@emse.fr>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
+1 to the proposal and to move forward one piece at a time.


Le 13/05/2012 22:54, Richard Cyganiak a écrit :
> Hi Ivan,
>
> On 13 May 2012, at 16:15, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> it looks to me that Sandro's draft document:
>>
>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/d96c16480e42/rdf-spaces/index.html
>>
>>
>>
would be a good way to 'settle' things (see [1]), too.
>
> Sandro's draft takes explicit position on a *all* issues, many of
> which are highly controversial. By bundling non-controversial and
> controversial issues all into one big package, this blocks progress
> on the sub-issues where we actually seem to all agree. So I repeat:
>
>
> PROPOSAL: The abstract syntax for working with multiple graphs in RDF
> consists of a default graph and zero or more pairs of IRI and graph.
> This resolves ISSUE-5 (“no”), ISSUE-22 (“yes”), ISSUE-28 (“no”),
> ISSUE-29 (“yes”), ISSUE-30 (“they are isomorphic”), ISSUE-33 (“no”).
>
>
> So far I have heard no objections to this.
>
> Best, Richard
>
>
>
>> At the moment it seems to collect all the various issues that we
>> have discussed with a fairly clear way of moving forward.
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>>
>> [1]
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0178.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
On May 13, 2012, at 16:59 , Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> We've been talking our way up and down the design space for
>>> multigraphs for a year now, with not much to show for it. We
>>> still have not settled on a basic design.
>>>
>>> Once we do settle on a basic design, the real work only starts
>>> since we need to nail down the details. This will take time. Our
>>> charter says that all documents should go to LC *this month*, and
>>> obviously we are nowhere near ready for this.
>>>
>>> So I think it's time to stop exploring the design space, and
>>> start collapsing it by making decisions.
>>>
>>> Obviously there is still strong disagreement on many things when
>>> it comes to multigraphs, but it seems to me that all proposals on
>>> the table accept a basic *abstract syntax* that is quite similar
>>> to the RDF datasets in SPARQL, and even the most adventurous
>>> experiments don't really stray from that forumla. Therefore:
>>>
>>>
>>> PROPOSAL: The abstract syntax for working with multiple graphs in
>>> RDF consists of a default graph and zero or more pairs of IRI and
>>> graph. This resolves ISSUE-5 (“no”), ISSUE-22 (“yes”), ISSUE-28
>>> (“no”), ISSUE-29 (“yes”), ISSUE-30 (“they are isomorphic”),
>>> ISSUE-33 (“no”).
>>>
>>>
>>> RATIONALE: All proposals on the table are based on an abstract
>>> syntax very similar to SPARQL's notion of an RDF dataset,
>>> although there is no consensus on the semantics and the
>>> terminology. Making a decision on the basic abstract syntax would
>>> unblock the work, and allow various strands of required detail
>>> work to proceed independently, hopefully leading to additional
>>> resolutions to remaining questions, such as:
>>>
>>> • What's the formal semantics of the abstract syntax? •
>>> Definition of the concrete syntaxes (N-Quads, etc.) • Describing
>>> how to work with this in the Primer • What do call the pairs?
>>> “Named graphs” or something else? • What to call the entire
>>> thing? “RDF dataset” or something else? • Can blank nodes be
>>> shared among graphs? • What additional terminology (rdf:Graph
>>> etc) needs to be defined?
>>>
>>> Best, Richard
>>
>>
>> ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home:
>> http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 FOAF:
>> http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

-- 
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 66 03
Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66
http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
Received on Sunday, 13 May 2012 21:09:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:48 GMT