W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > March 2011

Re: RDF datasets and graph literals

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 19:17:32 +0000
Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <0105AB5E-DB0D-4B18-9880-68AB1455F23A@garlik.com>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
On 2011-03-06, at 18:10, Andy Seaborne wrote:


> RDF datasets don't address the assertions about graphs UC very well.

I don't think I agree about that, as you say below it sometimes requires a little care over graph naming, but it's not hard. SPARQL's GRAPH keyword makes it pretty convenient to work with.

> They can - with careful graph naming (naming the g-snap, not the g-box), the default graph can contain assertions about the properties of a graph, just like graph literals can be used for RDF datasets.  It's just there is "some assemble required".

You can also do it with another named graph, depending on your use case that can be more convenient, e.g. so you can use PUT to replace the assertions about a graph.

- Steve

Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Sunday, 6 March 2011 19:18:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:03 UTC