- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:05:57 +0000
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 27/01/12 10:35, Ivan Herman wrote:
>
> On Jan 27, 2012, at 10:33 , Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 27/01/12 03:45, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 11:09 +0000, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>> On 04/01/12 19:23, David Wood wrote:
>>>>> Thanks, Sandro. That's very helpful.
>>>>>
>>>>> It might be useful to consider augmenting TriG syntax to
>>>>> support your third solution (explicitly naming relations).
>>>>> I'd be quite happy with that.
>>>>
>>>> What would the data model be?
>>>
>>> I think: an RDF graph which can have other RDF graphs as values
>>> of its triples. All these graphs would be subgraphs of some
>>> greater graph, so they can share b-nodes.
>>>
>>> (This is what cwm has had implemented since 2001, I think.)
>>
>> I thought this WG wasn't going there (graph literals).
>>
>> Personally, I see graph literals as the clean answer but it is RDF
>> 2 (+). RDF 1.1 is, to me, incremental improvements within the
>> current abstract data model. Datatyped literals (e.g. "<s> <p>
>> <o>"^^rdf:graphNTriples) are unwieldy and might block doing graph
>> literals properly in RDF 2+.
>>
>
> I am not convinced it is such a huge jump and, if this is the only
> way to have a clean way forward, we may have to do this. The
> datatyped literals may be a way forward and, after all, the trig
> version of using '{' may be considered as a syntactic sugar for a
> datatyped literal...
>
>
> Ivan
What happens to existing quad stores?
Andy
Received on Friday, 27 January 2012 11:06:23 UTC