W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > August 2012

Re: [All] Proposal: RDF Graph Identification

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:56:16 -0400
To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, W3C RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120816175613.GA10685@w3.org>
* David Wood <david@3roundstones.com> [2012-08-16 11:55-0400]
> Hi all,
> On Aug 16, 2012, at 11:45, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> >> 
> >> I find that this document goes quite a bit beyond what I think is necessary or desirable to support named graphs.  I propose instead a minimalist version of graph identification.  I will describe this minimalist version by stripping away pieces of the document.
> >> 
> >> Major changes:
> >> 
> >> 1/ No mutability:
> >> 
> >> Mutability is not required for named graphs or graph stores.  To effect this change, excise the first part of Section 2, Section 2.1, and Section 2.4.  Also fix up the abstract and Section 1.
> >> 
> >> I am somewhat ambivalent about whether the working group should do anything about mutability, but I am sure that the working group should not tie mutability to named graphs and certainly not to datasets.
> >> 
> > 
> > It is indeed the question whether mutability should be mentioned. The reason we thought of retaining this is because SPARQL has already introduced this with the differences between data stores and datasets. As the diagram shows this means that there is something 'missing' in the RDF related concepts (something that became also clear at the very beginning of the group's life when the term g-boxes were introduced) to make the picture complete. Indeed, the group may decide not to do anything here, but I still feel that the overall picture would be incomplete...
> > 
> > It is all SPARQL's fault!:-)
> …and SPARQL's uses in the real world of deployed information systems constitute a major set of use cases for RDF.
> I agree with Ivan here; the mutability of SPARQL's Graph Stores and slots suggested (rightly, I think), that the concept of spaces be added to complete the symmetry with the non-mutable concepts already defined in earlier specs.

I found this sentence particlarly motivating:
SPARQL 1.1, the SPARQL Protocol, the Linked Data API, Linked Open Data and various evolving forms of Linked Data for enterprises have created names for mutable RDF graphs that are coincident with their operational URLs.

Add to that that LDP will soon join the fray.
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2012 17:56:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:19 UTC