- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 17:33:15 +0100
- 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 UTC