W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > May 2012

Re: Making progress on graphs

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 18:07:05 -0400
Message-ID: <4FB03089.6030607@gmail.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
CC: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
I don't see Richard's proposal as chopping up the design space at all.

Instead I see that his proposal is aiming squarely at what has mostly been 
agreed on - syntax.  I also do not think that it moves forward one piece at a 
time, but instead addressed one real chunk of the problem.

There may be some tweaks required, but I think that Richard's proposal is a 
very good place to start.


PS:  I also think that it is a very good place to *stop*, but this is somewhat 
more controversial.

On 05/13/2012 05:29 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-05-13 at 23:09 +0200, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
>> +1 to the proposal and to move forward one piece at a time.
> I think our decisions should be choices between complete solutions or
> pieces of complete solutions.
> Otherwise we risk having no solutions, or only bad solutions, because we
> constrained the solution space blindly.
> Richard's proposal (with some minor tweaks in how he defined dataset
> [1]) happens to be in line with my proposal, but I'm rather opposed to
> it as a matter of principal; I don't see how chopping up the design
> space like this is going to produce better results, and I'm quite
> concerned it will make things worse.
> Please, just paint complete pictures, showing how to address all the use
> cases, or at least some interesting ones.  Then we can look at those
> pictures and decide among them.
> (Antoine, you kind of did this.  We've never talked about your
> proposal.  I happen to strongly prefer mine, but yours did make sense.)
> What we can do -- and maybe this is would be enough for what you want,
> Richard -- is make non-binding strawpolls to try to understand where
> people are coming from and what design features they are likely to
> support.
>     -- Sandro
> [1] Specifically: can the IRIs occur more than once?  I assume we'd
> agree not.  More controversially, can named graphs be empty?  I'd argue
> no, in order to keep compatibility with quad stores.   SPARQL 1.1 Update
> struggles with this, saying EG you can create an empty graph but it
> might be instantly deleted.
Received on Sunday, 13 May 2012 22:07:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:17 UTC