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

Re: Dataset Semantics

From: William Waites <wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:41:58 +0100
Message-ID: <505AE4E6.2020201@tardis.ed.ac.uk>
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
CC: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 19/09/12 21:42, Gregg Kellogg wrote:

> I my usage, this is typically the default graph, but it could be 
> some other "named" graph; however, if it is named, there doesn't 
> seem to be a way to find it unless there is some normative
> language for how the dataset description is named within a
> dataset.

I agree and think it ought to be in a named graph. It should be
possible to introspect the structure from descriptions written
down using, e.g. voiD. I'm not sure this needs to be specified
at a fundamental level by this WG.

> I think it is most natural for this to be the default dataset, or 
> that there is a relation defined within the default dataset which 
> names the dataset description.

I disagree because the whole idea of a "default dataset" or
"default graph" is bizarre historical baggage from before it
occurred that it might be useful to partition bags of triples.
It should be jettisoned, there is no need for it.

Cheers,
- -w

- -- 
William Waites MBCS
Network Engineer                          Research Fellow
High-speed Universal Broadband Scotland   School of Informatics
University of Stirling                    University of Edinburgh
http://www.tegola.org.uk/                 wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=kvbn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2012 09:42:26 GMT

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