- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2011 19:23:13 +0000
- 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