- From: Yves Raimond <Yves.Raimond@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:55:00 +0000
- To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, public-rdf-wg <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Hello!
> > MEANWHILE, we have a third solution, where we name the relation
> > explicitly. This is the one I prefer.
> >
> > UC1
> >
> > <http://example.org> rdf:graphState { ... triples recently fetched from there }
> >
> > UC2 -- either of the styles given above, depending whether the
> > harvester wants to publish its copies on the web or not.
> >
> > UC3
> >
> > eg:sandro eg:endorses <uuid:nnnnn>.
> > <uuid:nnnnn> owl:sameAs { ... the triples I'm endorsing ... }
> >
> > or, logically:
> >
> > eg:sandro eg:endorses { ... the triples I'm endorsing ... }
> >
> > (Then, I would probably get rid of the curly braces around the default
> > graph, so it becomes Turtle with Nesting.)
> >
This has my preference. It would be interesting to understand exactly how it would translate in terms of syntaxes though (it would probably need significant updates to TriG if we want it to not be too verbose).
Best,
y
> > Do those three solution designs make sense? Any strong preferences
> > among them? Are there more use cases that people think the group will
> > find compelling and which cannot be solved by all three of these
> > solutions? (I think the next use case I'd approach would be "Tracing
> > Inference Results", mostly because it motivates shared blank nodes.
> > But I'm out of time for today.)
> >
> > -- Sandro
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2012 16:57:49 UTC