W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp@w3.org > March 2014

Re: Multiple Named Graph

From: Nandana Mihindukulasooriya <nmihindu@fi.upm.es>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 00:40:38 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAOEr1mTos6A8_JcQPqkowPPzUVRrEtE1OU1VNPX9-tm9LQ_wg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: Reto Gmür <reto@apache.org>, "henry.story@bblfish.net" <henry.story@bblfish.net>, Linked Data Platform WG <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>, public-ldp <public-ldp@w3.org>
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:

>  On 03/26/2014 05:32 PM, Reto Gmür wrote:
>   LDP defines (implicitly somewhere) a relationship between the graph
> name and the graph (the graph describes the resource identified by graph
> name) and allows returning the dataset instead of the graph.
> Yeah, that's hinted at by the example.   I'm starting to think we should
> take out all mention of named graphs and leave that for a future spec that
> defines a mechanism by which clients can ask servers to give them a dataset
> (eg a BasicContainer and all its members as named graphs).

Probably that is a good move I think. IIRC, we introduced named graph
concept to clarify this special case where the containers embed its members
and not to loose the provenance of the triples that are coming from members
which are not part of the container state. However, apparently it has led
to more confusion than clarity.

Best Regards,
Received on Monday, 31 March 2014 22:42:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:16:37 UTC