- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:28:22 -0400
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- CC: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 08/17/2012 07:37 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > RDF could just not mention mutability. On balance, some text in > "concepts" to give an overview is useful; it does not need to be > continued. RDF specs define what is, not operations. Implementers > seem to have got on just fine with RDF-2004, and that program language > "sets" are (with care) mutable does not cause problems. But we don't yet have interoperability in graph metadata/management. That's what IMHO we're trying to achieve here - the use cases I've tried to write up all seem to involve that. How can we reliably convey provenance metadata when there's no clarity about when/if different "graphs" will be changing? Does metadata about one "graph" also apply to another "graph" that has the same triples? (The answer depends on whether the metadata is really about a g-box or a g-snap -- I think people can get clarity on it when they consider whether the metadata would still hold if the "graph" changed.) -- Sandro
Received on Friday, 17 August 2012 12:28:50 UTC