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: Mon, 14 May 2012 10:02:03 +0100
Message-ID: <4FB0CA0B.4040900@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org


On 14/05/12 05:37, Ivan Herman wrote:
>
> On May 13, 2012, at 22:54 , 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”).
>
> You are right that these particular issues seem to have general
> consensus. My concern is that, by taking a formal resolution on this
> now, we get ourselves into a false sense of security of having solved
> the named graph issue. And that is not the case or at least there is
> no consensus that being the case. Hence my reluctance of taking your
> proposal as a formal step.

I will not feel we have solved NG by adopting Richards proposal - I may 
feel we are making progress and that if, as has happened before, we go 
through some reworking again, then there is a new baseline.

My concern is that by wrapping everything in one document, which 
contains controversial and non-controversial material, is that 
discussions on controversial points swamp non-controversial material.

There are many different interests covered - it is hard to find 
everything.  Separating out some strands would help people engage in 
different parts.

(example: this is illegal-by-doc, which I assume is not intended to be 
ruled out:

:g { :s1 :p1 :o1 . :s2 :p2 :o2 }

)


	Andy

> For example, Sandro also formally speaks of quads: these are widely
> used, never defined, and obviously closely related to the issue of
> named graphs. This is not part of your proposal.
 >
> I do not think that Sandro's document is 'highly controversial'; it
> is a much less radical approach than many that was discussed in the
> past few months. In this in this sense that it is a good basis of
> discussion (in my view).
>
> Ivan
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---- 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 14 May 2012 09:02:40 GMT

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