Re: ISSUE-105: Graph vs. dataset syntaxes

I find this a sensible compromise...

For Trig/Turtle this may not be formally relevant because, afaik, Trig will have its own media type. But, for example, if an extension of RDFa is defined some day including facilities for graphs, this is probably an approach to follow.


On Dec 5, 2012, at 13:13 , Markus Lanthaler 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

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
mobile: +31-641044153

Received on Thursday, 13 December 2012 11:36:56 UTC