- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 12:34:34 -0400
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 17:10 +0100, Nathan wrote: > Hi All, > > Just a quick, mini proposal wrt supporting multiple "named graphs" in > turtle. > > We could add a new keyword and directive, @graph (or @namespace), who's > value was an IRI. This would be a minimal change to the grammar, for > example: > > @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> . > @prefix dc: <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/> . > @prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> . > > # default graph > <http://example.org/bob> dc:publisher "Bob" . > <http://example.org/alice> dc:publisher "Alice" . > > @graph <http://example.org/bob> . > _:a foaf:name "Bob" . > _:a foaf:mbox <mailto:bob@oldcorp.example.org> . > > @graph <http://example.org/alice> . > _:a foaf:name "Alice" . > _:a foaf:mbox <mailto:alice@work.example.org> . > > I believe it's pretty self explanatory, so will spare getting in to any > heavy details, other than a couple of basic questions: > > - What would the scope of @prefix and @base declarations be? > (either no change / file wide, or with a scope of the nearest "@graph") > > - Would the value be an IRI, or an absolute-IRI? > (my own preference would be the latter). I don't really see the advantage over something like: <graph> <connector> { ... }. But really, I think the key question is what is the relationship between "http://example.org/bob" and those two triples? (That is, ISSUE-15) Until we know that, it's hard to know what syntax is appropriate. Thinking about this reminded me of another GRAPHS issue not raised yet, so I just raised ISSUE-21, "Can Node-IDs be shared between parts of a quad/multigraph format?" -- Sandro
Received on Friday, 1 April 2011 16:34:48 UTC