New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS

I've written up design 6 (originally suggested by Andy) in more
detail.  I've called in 6.1 since I've change/added a few details that
Andy might not agree with.  Eric has started writing up how the use
cases are addressed by this proposal.

This proposal addresses all 15 of our old open issues concerning graphs.
(I'm sure it will have its own issues, though.)

The basic idea is to use trig syntax, and to support the different
desired relationships between labels and their graphs via class
information on the labels.  In particular, according to this proposal,
in this trig document:

   <u1> { <a> <b> <c> }

... we only know that <u1> is some kind of label for the RDF Graph <a>
<b> <c>, like today.  However, in his trig document:

   { <u2> a rdf:Graph }
   <u2> { <a> <b> <c> }

we know that <u2> is an rdf:Graph and, what's more, we know that <u2>
actually is the RDF Graph { <a> <b> <c> }.  That is, in this case, we
know that URL "u2" is a name we can use in RDF to refer to that g-snap.

Details are here:

That page includes answers to all the current GRAPHS issues, including
ISSUE-5, ISSUE-14, etc.

Eric has started going through Why Graphs and adding the examples as
addressed by Proposal 6.1:

     -- Sandro (with Eric nearby)

Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2012 02:23:13 UTC