- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 08:37:39 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 11/12/2014 7:44, Arthur Ryman wrote: > Holger, > > I am not following your suggestion. Please clarify at the telecon > tomorrow. I will. > My brief response is: > > RDFS does not express constraints. > > owl:imports has semantics defined by the OWL spec, which does not express > constraints. > > I don't see how named graphs apply. In OSLC, we follow Linked Data which > means resources have RDF representations, i.e. sets of triples. Named > graphs are part of RDF Datasets so you'd need to use Trig or N-Quads. My brief response is that named graphs are useful to build union graphs consisting of a controlled subset of all graphs for a given task. owl:imports is the best established means to say that one graph uses another, regardless of the fact that it is part of the OWL spec. We have used named graphs for similar scenarios as you describe for many years. Trig or N-Quads are just serializations, while the actual implementation may be something like a Jena MultiUnion graph. Applications receiving RDF as a payload have any freedom to select the graphs that they need for execution of constraints. And no-one stated that RDFS expresses constraints - that's the gap that this WG is trying to fix (if we ever get any conclusion on anything, which I start to doubt). Holger
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2014 22:40:18 UTC