Re: ISSUE-105: Graph vs. dataset syntaxes

Hi Markus,

I think I like the idea. That sounds like a reasonable behaviour, might
help to resolve issue 105 [1], and might be a good compromise between
giving a formal semantics to datasets (which we resolved not to do) and
leaving users completely unadvised.

  pa

[1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/105


On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Markus Lanthaler
<markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>wrote:

> While JSON-LD is a dataset syntax we expect that in most cases it will be
> used to express simple graphs. This might become problematic if a consumer
> is unable to process datasets -- even in the case where the dataset
> consists
> of only the default graph. In JSON-LD we resolved this issue by specifying
> that a consumer expecting a graph, MUST ignore everything but the default
> graph.
>
> This allows publishers to expose their graphs in, e.g., both JSON-LD and
> Turtle. Summarized, the behavior of a consumer would be as follows:
>
> Exposed  |  Expected  |  behavior
> ---------+------------+-----------
> Data set |  graph     |  use default graph as graph, ignore rest
> Data set |  data set  |  exposed = expected
> Graph    |  data set  |  use graph as default graph in dataset
> Graph    |  graph     |  exposed = expected
>
>
> This might have consequences on how data should be modeled (what should be
> put in the default graph and what in a named graph) but that's beyond the
> scope of a syntax.
>
> I would therefore like to propose to standardize this behavior for all RDF
> data set syntaxes.
>
>
> Regards,
> Markus
>
>
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
>
>
>