- From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr>
- Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 17:33:50 +0100
- CC: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Le 03/03/2011 16:11, Richard Cyganiak a écrit : > On 3 Mar 2011, at 14:55, Ivan Herman wrote: >> This has some relevance to our discussion: >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/void/ >> >> My first immediate question would be (and I am sure Richard or Michael can answer that): is there a fundamental difference between what we called g-box in the past few days and 'dataset' as used in the VoID document? Just to add to our mess on terms used...:-) > > We have a very loose definition of “dataset”: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/void/#dataset > > I don't think it really helps us here. I guess that any collection of one or more g-snaps and/or g-boxes can be a void:Dataset. On the contrary, I think it helps, to some extent, to address Fabien's concerns. The meta-information that Fabien would like to see attached to a graph (such as, SPARQL endpoint, date of creation, etc) are actually information that is covered by voiD if only you allow yourself to attach this information to a void:Dataset rather than a "graph" or g-thing. The dataset can easily refer to the g-things, if there is a way to identify them. > One reason why I want to see this group nail down the g-box/g-snap/g-text terminology in a REC is that it would provide a *much* more solid foundation for things like VoID, where we currently have to hand-wave a lot for lack of citable standard terminology. Yep, I've been reading the voiD stuff these days and I agree there are some things that seem fuzzily defined. > Best, > Richard Regards, -- Antoine Zimmermann Researcher at: Laboratoire d'InfoRmatique en Image et Systèmes d'information Database Group 7 Avenue Jean Capelle 69621 Villeurbanne Cedex France Lecturer at: Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Lyon 20 Avenue Albert Einstein 69621 Villeurbanne Cedex France antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
Received on Thursday, 3 March 2011 16:34:27 UTC