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

Re: RDF datasets and graph literals

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2011 19:23:13 +0000
Message-ID: <4D73DF21.7030507@webr3.org>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
CC: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Andy Seaborne wrote:
> RDF datasets don't address the assertions about graphs UC very well.
> 
> 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".

There's a very critical detail here, the need to talk about a g-box, and 
the need to talk about a g-snap, if we do both by name, how do you 
distinguish?

If it's decided that syntax like:

G1: {
   ...
}

refers to a named-g-snap, then many of the use cases for "quoted graphs" 
are covered.

However, this would preclude the named-g-box use-cases (linked data, 
graph changes over time, etc).

There are limited syntax options here, a primary question is whether we 
need to talk about both g-boxes and g-snaps, if both then we need (well 
should) handle both.

Best,

Nathan

terminology distinctions:
"quoted graph" a turtle like structure of triples wrapped in {} in a 
serialization, like N3
"graph literal" a chunk of rdf in some serialization, wrapped up as a 
typed literal.
Received on Sunday, 6 March 2011 19:30:35 UTC

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