Re: Graphs, some quick comments

I don't think that this is correct.

In my opinion RDF and RDFS is defined/constrained by its semantics, or
at least it should be!  In the RDF Semantics you find the bulk of the
technical details, and in RDF Concepts you find definitions of many of
the basic concepts of RDF, mostly in Section 6.

Yes, RDF/XML, the only official exchange syntax for RDF, is not a
complete syntax for RDF graphs, but that is really a minor point.

The stuff you mention below is not (yet?) a part of RDF.

peter


From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Subject: Graphs, some quick comments
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:52:52 -0500

> (just dropped these in #swig, copying here)
> 
> RDF is defined/constrained by it's serializations currently, so anything 
> in the model/abstract is in the serializations, so when we discuss 
> things like multiple graphs, graph literals, named graphs, it's done in 
> terms of syntax, when really there is hardly ever a case where you need 
> multiple graphs in the syntax, other than when dumping stores or sets of 
> data, and that ain't RDF.
> 
> however, behind the interface you need this stuff all the time, but not 
> over the wire, and RDF doesn't handle that.
> 
> so, perhaps a higher problem is: RDF is defined in terms of on the wire 
> needs, but RDF is used as a data model for working with data behind the 
> interface, and the two have different requirements.
> 
> if you look at the RDF Graph usecases on the wiki, you'll notice that 
> most of them are about managing or working with data, and people are 
> using the syntax of trig or quads to say what they mean - but only the 
> dumping stores cases actually /require/ having anything in the 
> serialization.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Nathan
>

Received on Thursday, 21 April 2011 19:58:05 UTC