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

RDF-ISSUE-142: rdfs:Graph ? comment [RDF Semantics]

From: RDF Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 20:47:10 +0000
Message-Id: <E1VJrJe-0003P5-Q9@nelson.w3.org>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
RDF-ISSUE-142: rdfs:Graph ? comment [RDF Semantics]

http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/142

Raised by: Guus Schreiber
On product: RDF Semantics

Comment by Jeremy Carroll:

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Jul/0021.html

This is a formal comment on http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-dataset, and it appears a comment on
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-schema/index.html
and quite possibly on the RDF Semantics ….

It seems to be a suggestion to reopen issue 35
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/35
which points to
http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-service-description/
hence I am CC-ing dawg. 
The last part of this message discusses problems in using service description to meet my use case: to me, this is not a comment on DAWG's work, but a comment that RDF Core cannot use DAWG's work of more limited scope to duck the issue.


Summary: I would like to use rdf to describe graphs in a dataset, e.g. to say who the author was.

as a simple example

my:graph {
   my:graph dc:creator "Jeremy J. Carroll" .
}

I cannot see how to do this with the current drafts, editors drafts, etc.

A possible approach would be to reopen issue 35  and have a class rdfs:Graph, s.t. for a <URI> used as the name of a graph in a dataset the triple
   <URI> rdf:type rdfs:Graph
holds.
More weakly, I would be satisfied with such a concept being added to the RDF vocabulary, without the implication above holding, but a suggested usage pattern.

Also, I basically finished this message before finding issue 35 and it's superficially reasonable resolution that sd:Graph may meet my needs. This suggests that some documentation link from either RDF Concepts or RDF Schema or RDF Semantics to SPARQL Service Description would be helpful ….
However, the Service Description doc
http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-service-description/
ducks on the issue of whether the name denotes the graph, and so does not give me a clear place to put such metadata.
I think if the RDF WG tried writing such documentation, they would discover that the resolution of issue 35 would unravel - the trick is to allow such unravelling without having too much of the named graphs work unravel.
Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2013 20:47:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:16 UTC