W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > April 2011

Re: RDF API updates

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 14:01:40 +0100
Message-ID: <4DB41F34.2060608@webr3.org>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: RDFA Working Group <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Ivan Herman wrote:
> On Apr 23, 2011, at 17:29 , Nathan wrote:
> So... where does it leave us? I believe that
> 1. The Literal lexical value must be stored alongside the lexical-to-value-space mapping results
> 2. Formally, the equality of literals should follow 6.5.1 above. But the API can be silent on that and simply refer to the right section of the RDF Concepts document 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/#section-Literal-Equality
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-profiles/#Reasoning_in_OWL_2_RL_and_RDF_Graphs_using_Rules 


> I would, however, add a note to the document somewhere, saying that the current RDF WG is looking at the issue of graph identification and if and when that is resolved and the concepts are clearer, this WG will look at how those concepts can be represented on the API level. In other words, this leaves the issue open and leaves it to the right WG to do the heavy lifting...


> That being said: with the existence of the SPARQL concepts (and overall practice, I believe, in RDF environment) it might be possible and indeed good to add an optional attribute to Graph, namely an RDFNode with the name, say, context. This means that a URI can be associated to a Graph, something that SPARQL requires with its own datasets already today...

Good idea

> Let us follow this line. Maybe the only tiny issue is that there should be, in the document an explicit issue that makes it clear that this is, well, an issue, and we explicitly ask the RDF WG to comment on this aspect of the spec. We will see whether there will be objections.


Well that was easy!

Received on Sunday, 24 April 2011 13:09:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:51 UTC