- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:47:16 -0600
- To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Dec 13, 2011, at 5:39 PM, David Wood wrote: > Hi all, > > The one thing that gnaws at me about this proposal is "The default graph does not have a name". I feel (as opposed to "think") that it should be "The default graph MAY not have a name". You do mean MAY not, not MAY NOT, right? So this is synonymous with "The default graph MAY be nameless" , right? > > It is not clear to me how to name the default graph in the case where it may have one. > > Also, should an RDF Dataset be allowed to be placed within another RDF Dataset? What would that mean? Would the 'inner' dataset have a name? What then would be the name of a graph inside that inner dataset? (Do you need two IRIs to be concatenated?) Wouldn't this require a quint store rather than a quad store? > If so, then the definition of an RDF Dataset should be appended to include "zero or more RDF Datasets". Can someone suggest why such recursion is desired or why not? I think just defining it clearly would be a nightmare. Unless there is a very good reason to have it, I suggest not having it. Adding this will add months of extra work to the WG's activities. Pat > One thing that occurs to me is I may wish to create a collection of graphs, some of which may already have been grouped by someone else. This would allow RDF Datasets to be used in a way similar to database views. > > Regards, > Dave > > > > > On Dec 13, 2011, at 17:03, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > >> On 13 Dec 2011, at 20:54, Guus Schreiber wrote: >>> The main thing we seem to be in limbo about is the GRAPHS debate. I suggest we devote the meeting to this theme. I have included in the agenda some discussion topics that came up in recent telecons, plus the email of Andy on TriG examples. I suggest we also have a meta-discussion on what our options are for getting consensus. >> >> I suggest a straw poll: >> >> [[ >> PROPOSAL: Close all graph model+semantics issues by accepting the RDF Datasets design [1] as the data model, and by adding no new semantics. >> ]] >> >> Knowing who can't live with this minimalist approach would be a form of progress IMO. >> >> Best, >> Richard >> >> >> [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#section-multigraph > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 01:50:16 UTC