- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:16:56 +0000
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 2012-01-27, at 09:33, 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+. > > The use of explicit triples in another graph to indicate the relationship looks interesting for RDF 1.1. +1 > Whether this should be the default graph or another "system/manifest/??" graph isn't clear to me. For the dump "use case" it makes some sense to keep them separate. Right, this is a tricky one, and the decision should really be based on minimum impact to existing systems, IHMO. - Steve -- Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK +44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 0535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 Registered office: Landmark House, Experian Way, Nottingham, Notts, NG80 1ZZ
Received on Friday, 27 January 2012 12:17:27 UTC