Re: named graphs (was Re: Data URIs)

On 2 Jul 2008, at 20:10, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> I don't have a strong opinion about these different approaches, but I
> think we should be clear that these are primarily interim designs for
> use until there's a standard format for RDF with named graphs.  And we
> should make sure whatever approach we pick can be compatible with a
> future named-graphs standard,

How can we possibly do this :)

Plus, won't whatever they do take what we did into account?

> so OWL 2 wont have to change: there will
> be the RDF/XML serialization (using one of these interim hacks) and  
> the
> RDF/XML+NamedGraphs serialization that doesn't need such hacks.
> As far as I can tell, there is consensus in the RDF community that  
> there
> should be a named-graph standard.  Making such a standard is,
> unfortunately, an awkwardly-sized peice of work.  It doesn't really  
> fit
> inside any other work, and it's rather small for a whole new Working
> group.  So I don't know exactly when/how it will happen.

RDFED anyone? :)


Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2008 19:20:15 UTC