- From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:29:40 +0200
- To: "antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr" <antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr>
- CC: "public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Antoine, On 06/28/2011 12:16 PM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote: > This brings back the question of graph literals. Or should I say, > literal graphs? > > I have no problem with graph literal per se, and would be happy that a > datatype for graph serialisation exist, but I would not like it to be > mandated for talking about graphs. > > I would rather use a different approach, which has been proposed already > by Pat, IIRC: > > "Graph IRIs" are just tags attached to an RDF graph and don't need to be > interpreted as graphs in an RDF interpretation. For instance, > > :cutekitty { :cutekitty a animal:Dog } > > is fine. However, when you want to talk about the graph tagged with the > Graph IRI :cutekitty, you provide a new URI (which must be interpreted > as a graph) and connect it to the graph IRI as follows, for instance: > > :cutekitty { :cutekitty a animal:Dog } > :graph1 :hasGraphIRI "http://example.org/cutekitty"^^xsd:anyURI ; > :me :believes :graph1 . But in the text above, what is "{ :curekitty a animal:Dog }" if not a graph literal?? My proposal simply aims at making your example above fit into existing RDF, by interpreting the first line as [ rdf:ttl-serialization ":cutekitty a animal:Dog" ] :hasGraphIRI "http://example.org/cutekitty"^^xsd:anyURI ; So it is, IMHO, perfectly compatible with the proposal you mention. pa > > This leads to other problems if you publish this kind of things on the > web but is probably working well inside a graph store. > > > Le 22/06/2011 19:26, Pierre-Antoine Champin a écrit : >> After reading the Dataset proposal [1] on the wiki, >> I put a different proposal >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs/RDF-Quadless-Proposal >> >> which attempts to reconcile the "loose naming" vision with the "strict >> naming" vision by providing a common ground for both. >> >> pa >> >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs/RDF-Datasets-Proposal >> > >
Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 12:30:28 UTC