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

Re: Making progress on graphs

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 22:13:26 +0100
Message-ID: <4FB023F6.10500@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org


On 13/05/12 21:54, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> 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”).

These issues are:

ISSUE-5:
Should we define Graph Literal datatypes?

ISSUE-22:
Does multigraph syntax need to support empty graphs?

ISSUE-28:
Do we need syntactic nesting of graphs (g-texts) as in N3?

ISSUE-29:
Do we support SPARQL's notion of "default graph"?

ISSUE-30:
How does SPARQL's notion of RDF dataset relate our notion of multiple 
graphs?

ISSUE-33:
Do we provide a way to refer to sub-graphs and/or individual triples?

>
>
> 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
Received on Sunday, 13 May 2012 21:13:56 GMT

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