W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Resolution of ISSUE-105

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:44:19 +0000
Message-Id: <12FA5FBE-866D-436D-97C7-7CE7CBE20965@garlik.com>
To: "public-rdf-wg@w3.org WG" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 2013-02-07, at 08:45, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote:
> 
> On 06/02/13 17:25, David Hyland-Wood wrote:
>> Hi Steve,
>> 
>> The RDF WG today resolved [1] ISSUE-105 [2], which I know you care about.  Can you please take a look and let us know if you object?  Thanks.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>> --
>> http://about.me/david_wood
>> 
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-02-06#resolution_1
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-02-06#resolution_2
> 
> (#resolution_1 is accepting the minutes of the last meeting)
> 
>> [2] https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/105
> 


Thanks.

I think this doesn't make any sense, but I'm not going to object to it. I would have voted -0.5 had I been there, FWIW.

If you're a client, and you're expecting a graph, but get a dataset, then surely something has gone wrong? At best it's going to be confusing to all concerned. Just silently ignoring this kind of semantic mismatch strikes me as unwise.

Also this rather ignores the issue of implementing it - how should a generic RDF consumer (e.g. a triplestore) know whether the end-user was expecting a graph or a dataset?

Cheers,
   Steve

-- 
Steve Harris
Experian
+44 20 3042 4132
Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93
80 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 5JL
Received on Friday, 15 February 2013 10:44:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:54 GMT