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: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 13:10:43 +0100
Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <9EC4E1B0-34ED-4E55-893F-E2C5529E0A2E@garlik.com>
To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
On 2012-09-27, at 13:04, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:

> On 9/27/2012 7:08 AM, 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.
>> 
>> The simple case is one graph.  For that, making the publisher go through "naming" is just overhead for them.
>> 
> 
> In the case of one graph, I'd imagine one would use RDF/XML or Turtle or what-not and use traditional ways of specifying metadata.
> 
> Simple or not, I don't think that a single graph is at all a common use case for TriG, and I don't think we should design a TriG metadata approach around it.

Exactly.

- Steve

-- 
Steve Harris, CTO
Garlik, a part of Experian
+44 7854 417 874  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93
80 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 5JL
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 12:11:20 GMT

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