- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 22:13:26 +0100
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 13/05/12 21:54, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > Hi Ivan, > > On 13 May 2012, at 16:15, Ivan Herman wrote: >> it looks to me that Sandro's draft document: >> >> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/d96c16480e42/rdf-spaces/index.html >> >> >> would be a good way to 'settle' things (see [1]), too. > > Sandro's draft takes explicit position on a *all* issues, many of > which are highly controversial. By bundling non-controversial and > controversial issues all into one big package, this blocks progress > on the sub-issues where we actually seem to all agree. So I repeat: > > > PROPOSAL: The abstract syntax for working with multiple graphs in RDF > consists of a default graph and zero or more pairs of IRI and graph. > This resolves ISSUE-5 (“no”), ISSUE-22 (“yes”), ISSUE-28 (“no”), > ISSUE-29 (“yes”), ISSUE-30 (“they are isomorphic”), ISSUE-33 (“no”). These issues are: ISSUE-5: Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? ISSUE-22: Does multigraph syntax need to support empty graphs? ISSUE-28: Do we need syntactic nesting of graphs (g-texts) as in N3? ISSUE-29: Do we support SPARQL's notion of "default graph"? ISSUE-30: How does SPARQL's notion of RDF dataset relate our notion of multiple graphs? ISSUE-33: Do we provide a way to refer to sub-graphs and/or individual triples? > > > So far I have heard no objections to this. > > Best, Richard > > > >> At the moment it seems to collect all the various issues that we >> have discussed with a fairly clear way of moving forward. >> >> Ivan >> >> >> [1] >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0178.html
Received on Sunday, 13 May 2012 21:13:56 UTC