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

Solve ISSUE-35 and ISSUE-38 by referring to SPARQL 1.1 Service description

From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 17:34:27 +0200
Message-ID: <504E0883.5000109@emse.fr>
To: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
The following issues:


"ISSUE-35: Should there be an rdf:Graph construct, or something like that?"
"ISSUE-38: What new vocabulary should be added to RDF to talk about graphs?"

could be closed by saying that SPARQL 1.1 Service Description already 
provides a vocabulary for describing graphs, named graphs, datasets etc.

sd:Graph  rdfs:comment  "An instance of sd:Graph represents the 
description of an RDF graph." .
sd:NamedGraph  rdfs:comment  "An instance of sd:NamedGraph represents a 
named graph having a name (via sd:name) and an optional graph 
description (via sd:graph)." .
sd:Dataset  rdfs:comment  "An instance of sd:Dataset represents a RDF 
Dataset comprised of a default graph and zero or more named graphs." .

rdf:Graph would be redundent.  There are conceptual issues, however, wrt 
to the service description vocabulary, in particular the fact the a 
sd:NamedGraph may have an entailment regime. Entailment regimes are 
relative to a SPARQL service, not to a <name,graph> pair alone.

Of course, whatever is defined in this SD vocabulary would not impact 
the semantics of RDF and the semantics of these terms would not be hard 
coded in RDF inference engines. But I consider this as a feature, not a 
bug. The SD vocab provides enough flexibility to address cases which are 
outside the scope of pure SPARQL services.
-- 
Antoine Zimmermann
ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol
École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne
158 cours Fauriel
42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2
France
Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03
Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66
http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
Received on Monday, 10 September 2012 15:35:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:51 GMT