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

Re: Comments on RDF Spaces document

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 17:33:15 +0100
Message-ID: <4FC105CB.4050602@epimorphics.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: public-rdf-wg@w3.org


On 26/05/12 17:09, Ivan Herman wrote:
>
> On May 26, 2012, at 17:52 , Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 26/05/12 16:19, Ivan Herman wrote:
>>
>>>>> 3.2 Quad and Quadset
>>>>
>>>> Why is this needed? Propose remove.
>>>
>>> I am lukewarm about this, I must say. On the one hand, indeed, we
>>> could have named graphs (or whatever we call them) defined without
>>> explicit quads. One the other hand: shouldn't we, somewhere in our
>>> documents (remember that I look at this document as a 'gathering
>>> place') define quads? After all, they *are* widely used, and some
>>> sort of a relationships to named graphs should be defined somewhere.
>>>
>>> So I am not sure myself... But I am not as clear-cut as you are.
>>
>> I think it can be useful to state what a quad is (maybe "define", maybe not), but it is an implementation technique and it is not the only one for datasets.
>
> This makes sense. But we do have requests to define NQuads, for example. Ie, we do have to define this *somewhere*...

See my proposal for NQuads to cover empty named graph without 
invalidating every current NQuads file which has any named graph in it.

	Andy

>
> I.
>
>
>>
>> 	Andy
>>
>
>
> ----
> 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 Saturday, 26 May 2012 16:33:47 GMT

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