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

Re: RDF datasets and graph literals

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 19:39:09 +0000
Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <DFCB50C9-9F84-48E8-9268-FF7A6BEE34FB@cyganiak.de>
To: nathan@webr3.org
Hi Nathan,

On 6 Mar 2011, at 19:23, Nathan wrote:
> 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

Just to be sure we're on the same page in this discussion, can you give an example for “talking about a g-box” and one for “talking about a g-snap”, in particular one where the distinction matters?

Cheers,
Richard




> , 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 19:50:20 UTC

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