Re: why I don't like default graphs in the DATASET proposal

On 29 Sep 2011, at 16:42, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
> A such, I consider the default graph to be a *property of the SPARQL
> engine* used to query the data, rather than a property of the data itself.

What's the problem with considering the default graph a property of the dataset?

Use cases, examples, test cases?

You present your personal opinion, and your preferred solution, and muse about how the non-preferred solution came about historically. I find none of this even remotely compelling unless some practical problems arise from including the concept of a default graph in the RDF spec.

> Imagine a world where SPARQL would have defined, as part of a dataset,
> the notion of *default resource*, so that I could write
>  SELECT ?friend WHERE {
>    foaf:knows ?friend
>  }
> Would we feel compelled to include the default resource in RDF Concepts?

This is a distraction here, but yes, the notion of a specially marked “default resource” (which would likely be the base URI in graphs deployed on the web) would actually be extremely useful because it would provide a natural and unique way of chopping RDF graphs into trees for serialization.


Received on Friday, 30 September 2011 09:38:35 UTC