Re: Clarifying Temporal Datasets

On 05/13/2013 09:44 AM, James Leigh wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After reading over the current draft[1] I felt some clarification was
> appropriate when introducing datasets. Graphs are clearly presented as
> immutable, but when datasets are introduces in section 1.6 their
> relationships to graphs are not clear. Below are my notes.
>
> [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html
>
> In section 1.6 Working with Multiple RDF Graphs, I suggest the
> relationship between datasets and graph be clarified. Particularly wrt
> temporal changes. Perhaps the following might be better.
>
>          An RDF dataset is a collection of RDF graphs. All but [at most]
>          one of these graphs have [at least one] associated IRI. They are
>          called named graphs, and the IRI is called the graph name. [One
>          of the graphs is called the default graph of the RDF dataset and
>          might] not have an associated IRI. [The graph name can be
>          associated with at most one graph at a time, but that associated
>          graph may change over time. The dataset's collection of graphs
>          and associated IRIs may also change over time].

An informal (non-group) reply on this part of your comment, hoping to 
clarify it.

The intent is to have datasets, like graphs, be pure mathematical 
objects.  A dataset can't change over time any more than a graph can.  
When you "change" it, you're making a different dataset.

SPARQL 1.1 Update introduces a mutable counterpart to a dataset called a 
'graph store':

http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-update/#graphStore

Are you okay with this design and just think it needs to be explained 
better in rdf-concepts?

       -- Sandro

> In section 3.3 Literals, the regex expressions include an '@' prefix,
> however, the spec never mentions what this '@' is for nor do language
> tags support an '@' at all. ;)
>
> In section 5.5 The Value Corresponding to a Literal, It says they "MUST
> accept ill-typed literals". I believe that should be changes to "SHOULD
> accept ill-typed literals", since earlier it says they SHOULD NOT reject
> them.
>
> Regards,
> James
>
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 16 May 2013 02:42:03 UTC