Re: rdfs:Graph ? comment on and issue 35

On Sep 7, 2013, at 8:06 AM, Sandro Hawke <> wrote:

> Hmmm.     Maybe all you're looking for here is a few, informal words that don't affect the formal semantics?
> Can you propose a specific text change that would address your concern?

Reviewing the arguments on both sides, I get the impression that there would be opposition to words that were not restricted in scope.
So, I will make two different proposals both of which would minimally address my concerns by modifying RDF Concepts, rather than Semantics.
Proposal 1)  is a normative, if woolly, proposal for graph naming. Proposal 2) is a normative, but opt-in, mechanism for graph naming. Logically proposal (2) should be more palatable 

Document being reviewed:


Concepts, section 1.5

"Like all resources, RDF sources may be named with IRIs and therefore described in other RDF graphs."
append, in the same paragraph.
RDF graphs in turn, can be named with IRIs, and also described in themselves or other RDF graphs.
Two mechanisms for naming RDF graphs are: a) if the graph is the only graph in an RDF source or b) if the
graph is named with an IRI in an RDF dataset.


This text defines a new class. All things being equal, this should go into RDF Vocabulary, but since the WG has not needed to change that document, this proposal suggests a new class rdf:Graph as opposed to rdfs:Graph, to be defined in RDF Concepts, as opposed to RDF Vocabulary.

Add section 3.7

3.7 The rdf:Graph class

This section defines a vocabulary item rdf:Graph in addition to those in [RDF-SCHEMA].
This is the class of resources that are RDF graphs. If a resource in this class is identified by an IRI, and that IRI is used to name a graph in a dataset, then within that dataset the resource SHOULD correspond to the named graph.

Stylistically this is intended to be like RDF Vocabulary, the editors might see fit to mangle that stylistic choice considerably.


Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2013 22:22:28 UTC