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

Re: ISSUE-28 - two readings?

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 13:11:40 +0100
Message-ID: <4FBCD3FC.5000103@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org


On 23/05/12 12:32, Pat Hayes wrote:
>
> On May 23, 2012, at 4:52 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>> ISSUE-28 Syntactic nesting of g-texts http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/28
>>
>>     PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-28 ("Do we need syntactic nesting of graphs (g-texts) as in N3?"), saying No, we do not -- they are useful, but we can provide the same functionality with datasets.
>>
>> - - - - -
>>
>> I think there is the possibility of misunderstanding here in having 2 ways to read "provide the same functionality".
>>
>> The first is that any use case can be built using datasets that could be built using nested graphs (graph literals).  That does not mean the technical design are the same, just they provide the same capabilities.
>>
>> The second is that there is a technical equivalence from a nested graph structure to a dataset.
>
> Well, if that first really is ANY use case, I think these are in fact equivalent. But...
>
>>
>> The second is, I think, Pat's point that it (#2) requires the IRI in the<IRI,G>  pair to to denote the graph.
>>
>> For me, the first is the important point and I'm reading the  resolution as that - given datasets, we can address the use cases; we do not *need* nested graphs.
>
> ... OK, then I want to be convinced. How exactly do datasets provide the functionality that nested graphs were needed for? Either give a general construction, or a set of pithy examples.

I don't think there are any examples where nested graphs are necessary - 
they may be a better way to do something, but then it changes the RDF 
data model in a significant way.

And if there were, the next question I'd have is whether we have the 
time/energy to cover it or say that we can enable a lot of use cases 
even if not all.

Do you have one UC in mind?

(see also Richard's message)

	Andy

>
> Pat
>
>>
>> 	Andy
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
> 40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2012 12:12:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:49 GMT