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

Re: New abstract for RDF Concepts

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 01:45:13 -0500
Message-ID: <509B54F9.1010000@gmail.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
CC: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>

On 11/07/2012 12:13 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> There were some comments about the RDF Concepts abstract not reflecting the content in sufficient detail. Here's an attempt at improving it:
>
> [[
> The Resource Description Framework (RDF) is a framework for representing information in the Web.
>
> RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax defines an abstract syntax (a data model) which serves to link all RDF-based languages and specifications. The abstract syntax has two key data structures: RDF graphs are sets of subject-predicate-object triples, where the elements may be IRIs, blank nodes, or datatyped literals. They are used to express descriptions of resources. RDF datasets comprise a default graph and zero or more named graphs, and are used to to express metadata about RDF graphs,
How?
> and to organize data by context.
How?
> This document also introduces key concepts and terminology, and discusses datatyping and the handling of fragment identifiers in IRIs within RDF graphs.
> ]]
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#abstract
>
> Proposals for further improvement are welcome.
>
> Cheers,
> Richard
>
>

As far as I can tell just about the only thing that the WG should say about 
RDF datasets is that they consist of a default graph and zero or more named 
graphs, and can be used to associate names with graphs.  If the WG calls out 
two questionable uses of RDF datasets, then it should also call out all the 
other, less-questionable uses. Who is volunteering to enumerate all of these?

peter
Received on Thursday, 8 November 2012 06:45:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:52 GMT