- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:47:34 +0000
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 18 Jan 2012, at 15:16, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> There are use cases such as “keep inferred triples separate from >> asserted triples in an RDF store” that really seem to require graph >> naming. > > Thanks - that is quite a good UC for naming graph values. > >> The use cases seem to fall into two groups: >> >> 1. RDF datasets as a cache/archive of collections of graphs obtained >> from other sources >> >> 2. RDF datasets as a way of managing subsets of a larger RDF graph >> >> Maybe it is true that everything in the first group can be handled by >> referring to documents or serializations. But I don't think it's >> possible for the second group. > > Useful characterisation. > > At the risk of overemphasising "managing", the use of the naming is more towards local-application usage, not exclusively though. I agree that group 2 is mostly about local in-application usage, and that the kind of “taggings” or “colorings” of a graph done in group 2 probably won't be exchanged between systems in most cases. Richard > A certain amount of just "tagging" or "coloring" the graph (the tag may well be a proper name, owl:sameValueAs, the graph - it's the degree of importance of this I'm exploring) [1] > > Andy > >> >> Best, Richard > > [1] I'm noting http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#sameAs-def says > "owl:sameAs links an individual to an individual" >
Received on Wednesday, 18 January 2012 15:48:21 UTC