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

Re: Putting metadata in the "default" graph Re: Dataset Syntax - checking for consensus

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 12:24:59 +0100
Message-ID: <5064378B.9030901@epimorphics.com>
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
CC: public-rdf-wg@w3.org

On 27/09/12 12:13, Steve Harris wrote:
> On 2012-09-27, at 12:08, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>> On 26/09/12 17:41, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
>>> We need to support it for compatibility, but I think it's a
>>> mistake to specify that anything important be put in that graph.
>> There are two uses cases: you and Steve emphasis the complicated
>> case of multiple graphs collected from many places.
> If that's not the case, why are you bothering with named graphs?

Because different customers have different requirements.  I come across 
both cases, but not necessary with the same data.

>> The simple case is one graph.  For that, making the publisher go
>> through "naming" is just overhead for them.
> But that's "just" RDF, isn't it? In that case I don't see the issue.

Yes, it is, and SPARQL is an RDF query language.

Requirement - publish data.

The idea of a "TriG" sub-ecosystem and an "RDF" sub-ecosystem is not a 
happy thought.


> - Steve
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 11:25:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:07 UTC