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

Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs]

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 10:03:02 +0000
Message-ID: <4D74AD56.3030305@epimorphics.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
CC: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>

On 06/03/11 14:40, Nathan wrote:
> Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>> My concern isn't all that much about graph literals, although I don't
>> see the evidence for them being needed.
> Cool, okay - do you know of any problems that may be caused by including
> them?

Depends what "they" are exactly but a range from large literals can be a 
pain (not that well supported by stores - this is minor and would get 
fixed if there were demand) through to retooling RDF processors to have 
graph nodes to make graph literals at all usable with API extensions to 
provide sane access to graph literals for applications.

Equality rules.


> Cheers, Nathan
Received on Monday, 7 March 2011 10:03:39 UTC

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