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

Re: RDF API thoughts

From: Simon Reinhardt <simon.reinhardt@koeln.de>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 20:43:00 +0100
Message-ID: <4D2CB2C4.30204@koeln.de>
To: nathan@webr3.org
CC: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Nathan wrote:
> Ivan Herman wrote:
>> On Jan 11, 2011, at 16:10 , Nathan wrote:
>>> 2: The inclusion of Graph Literals
>>> - because they may very well be included in the next revision of RDF, 
>>> as per the potential RDF WG draft charter.
>>>
>>
>> Per proposed charter:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2010/09/rdf-wg-charter.html#outofscope
>>
>> this is explicitly listed as out of scope!
>>
>> I am not saying we should not have it in the RDF API (I have not 
>> really made up my mind yet) but we should have our facts right... 
>> Sorry:-)
> 
> Apologies, I was reading the 
> http://www.w3.org/2010/09/rdf-wg-charter.html#scope section wrt "Support 
> for Multiple Graphs and Graph Stores" ... "... as quoted graphs, graph 
> literals" - hence why I mentioned the RDF WG in this context.

Which bit of the charter says it would be out of scope?
I can only imagine that graphs wouldn't be defined as a type of literal but rather a new node type. Because graphs in triples aren't very useful if you can't use them in subject position and the charter doesn't want to allow literals in subject position.

Regards,
  Simon
Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2011 19:44:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:08 GMT