- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 12:12:37 +0000
- To: William Waites <wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: richard@cyganiak.de, msporny@digitalbazaar.com, public-rdf-wg@w3.org, public-linked-json@w3.org
On 2013-02-14, at 12:05, William Waites <wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > I don't think having unnamed graphs is at all strange. RDF graphs are > anomalous in that they are the only kind of resource that we can talk > about using persistent global names but can't talk about using > temporary local names. I find this anomaly to be strange. > > But given Andy's remarks the last time around, I agree that this ship > has sailed for RDF 1.1, we'll have to wait for the next iteration to > fix it. I think that people who've tried to work around the "default" / "unanamed" graph (note, singular) in SPARQL can agree that's it's at best unfortunate, and at worst a giant pain in the arse. If you have exactly one graph, then there's no issue (you never need to refer to it), but as soon as you have >1 it starts to bite you. All this thinking about trying to save bytes in the representation I find very concerning - it seems to be assuming that this data is being typed by someone - if your system has people typing in significant quantities of RDF then something is pretty odd, IMHO. We should be aiming for clarity, and unambiguity IMHO, and I don't see how anonymous graphs help. - Steve -- Steve Harris Experian +44 20 3042 4132 Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93 80 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 5JL
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2013 12:13:11 UTC