W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > May 2013

Re: Turtle data-type

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 09:45:02 -0400
Message-ID: <51A6065E.1020505@openlinksw.com>
To: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
On 5/29/13 8:11 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> I agree that referential opacity is not provided by RDF reification 
> and that it is sometimes important.  But I think (1) datasets provide 
> it, and (2) as you suggest it can be provided with a datatype. Since 
> anyone can define a datatype, there's no need for RDF-WG to do so.  
> Maybe once one has been prototyped and used effectively, it could 
> become a standard.
> Also, procedurally, we've decided to use datasets as the way we handle 
> multiple graphs.   Specifically, what you're talking about was I think 
> part of what we called "Graph Literals".
>     2012/05/23-rdf-wg RESOLVED:  Close ISSUE-5 ("Should we define
>     Graph Literal datatypes?"), saying No, we should not.
> So unless you have new information, it's not really something for the 
> WG to talk about.  A few other relevant resolutions"
>     2011/04/14-rdf-wg RESOLVED:  Named Graphs in SPARQL associate IRIs
>     and graphs *but* they do not necessarily "name" graphs in the
>     strict model-theoretic sense. A SPARQL Dataset does not establish
>     graphs as referents of IRIs (relevant to ISSUE-30)
>     2012/05/23-rdf-wg RESOLVED:  Close ISSUE-30 ("How does SPARQL's
>     notion of RDF dataset relate our notion of multiple graphs?"),
>     saying we will use SPARQL's notion of RDF dataset as much of the
>     foundation of our handling of multiple graphs.
>     2012/05/23-rdf-wg RESOLVED:  Close ISSUE-33 ("Do we provide a way
>     to refer sub-graphs and/or individual triples?"), with the
>     understanding that datasets can be used to refer to sub-graphs and
>     individual triples. This does NOT rule out sharing blank nodes
>     between named graphs.
>     2012/10/03-rdf-wg RESOLVED:  This Working Group will not provide a
>     Formal Semantics for RDF Datasets or for our Dataset Syntax (eg
>     trig). The WG may publish some information about dataset semantics
>     in WG NOTES.
>     2012/10/30-rdf-wg RESOLVED:  The RDF WG intends to produce a NOTE
>     on the semantics of datasets.
>     2012/10/30-rdf-wg RESOLVED:  The WG intends to produce a NOTE:
>     Practical Use Cases of RDF Datasets.  This Note may include
>     information from ISSUEs 32, 35 and 38.

>     2013/01/23-rdf-wg RESOLVED:  Close ISSUE-25 by saying that this WG
>     will not deprecate reification of statements.  We will note
>     informatively in the RDF Schema spec that named graphs and RDF
>     datasets are another mechanism to accomplish the same goals.

> These are from http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/resolutions.txt which is 
> kind of lame (sorry), but better than nothing.  Kingsley, please see 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meetings which is also kind of lame but 
> better than nothing.
> As an aside, I continue to see little benefit to distinguishing 
> between datatypes and (functional, string-valued) properties. It's 
> like distinguishing between a salad fork and a dinner fork.    But 
> salad forks seem to be a thing people like, so I guess it's okay.
>        -- Sandro
Remember, I have all the issues at:

-- basic view
[2] http://bit.ly/VJkGIg -- Overview by Issue Creator .
[3] http://bit.ly/XswUGN -- Ditto by Issue Status .
[4] http://bit.ly/WI9PQK -- Sandro's Issues Report .



Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2013 13:45:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:59:34 UTC