- From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
- Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:14:35 +0200
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- CC: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
As I promissed to Richard during the last TC, I'm reactivating the thread on his proposal to "lift" the definition of RDF datasets into from SPARQL to RDF concepts [1] My main concern with this proposal is that it defines a somewhat complex structure (the dataset) as a primitive concept in RDF. My gut feeling is that we could instead define more basic concepts, on top of which SPARQL datasets, SPARQL graph stores, and possibly other structures, could be defined. In my understanding, this is what the g-* terminology was aiming at. In this perspective, back in June, I made an alternate proposal [2] for which I got almost no feedback. In a nutshell, it provides a minimal vocabulary for reifying RDF graphs into standard RDF, and sketches the semantics of such a reification. From there, it illustrates how multi-graphs syntaxes (such as Trig) and models (such as SPARQL datasets) can be defined on top of it. I know that Richard was concerned about several multi-graph models had slight differences (e.g. can a BNode be used as a graph name), and his solution was to endorse one of them and wait for the others to converge. My proposal is rather to provide the building blocks for everyone to describe their model in RDF itself, and leave it open for different models to coexist, which is ok as long as they can all be expressed in plain RDF. pa [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs/RDF-Datasets-Proposal [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs/RDF-Quadless-Proposal
Received on Monday, 22 August 2011 15:15:24 UTC