- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 10:02:03 +0100
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 14/05/12 05:37, Ivan Herman wrote: > > On May 13, 2012, at 22:54 , 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”). > > You are right that these particular issues seem to have general > consensus. My concern is that, by taking a formal resolution on this > now, we get ourselves into a false sense of security of having solved > the named graph issue. And that is not the case or at least there is > no consensus that being the case. Hence my reluctance of taking your > proposal as a formal step. I will not feel we have solved NG by adopting Richards proposal - I may feel we are making progress and that if, as has happened before, we go through some reworking again, then there is a new baseline. My concern is that by wrapping everything in one document, which contains controversial and non-controversial material, is that discussions on controversial points swamp non-controversial material. There are many different interests covered - it is hard to find everything. Separating out some strands would help people engage in different parts. (example: this is illegal-by-doc, which I assume is not intended to be ruled out: :g { :s1 :p1 :o1 . :s2 :p2 :o2 } ) Andy > For example, Sandro also formally speaks of quads: these are widely > used, never defined, and obviously closely related to the issue of > named graphs. This is not part of your proposal. > > I do not think that Sandro's document is 'highly controversial'; it > is a much less radical approach than many that was discussed in the > past few months. In this in this sense that it is a good basis of > discussion (in my view). > > Ivan > > > >> >> >> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> On May 13, 2012, at 16:59 , Richard Cyganiak wrote: >>> >>>> All, >>>> >>>> We've been talking our way up and down the design space for >>>> multigraphs for a year now, with not much to show for it. We >>>> still have not settled on a basic design. >>>> >>>> Once we do settle on a basic design, the real work only starts >>>> since we need to nail down the details. This will take time. >>>> Our charter says that all documents should go to LC *this >>>> month*, and obviously we are nowhere near ready for this. >>>> >>>> So I think it's time to stop exploring the design space, and >>>> start collapsing it by making decisions. >>>> >>>> Obviously there is still strong disagreement on many things >>>> when it comes to multigraphs, but it seems to me that all >>>> proposals on the table accept a basic *abstract syntax* that is >>>> quite similar to the RDF datasets in SPARQL, and even the most >>>> adventurous experiments don't really stray from that forumla. >>>> Therefore: >>>> >>>> >>>> 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”). >>>> >>>> >>>> RATIONALE: All proposals on the table are based on an abstract >>>> syntax very similar to SPARQL's notion of an RDF dataset, >>>> although there is no consensus on the semantics and the >>>> terminology. Making a decision on the basic abstract syntax >>>> would unblock the work, and allow various strands of required >>>> detail work to proceed independently, hopefully leading to >>>> additional resolutions to remaining questions, such as: >>>> >>>> • What's the formal semantics of the abstract syntax? • >>>> Definition of the concrete syntaxes (N-Quads, etc.) • >>>> Describing how to work with this in the Primer • What do call >>>> the pairs? “Named graphs” or something else? • What to call the >>>> entire thing? “RDF dataset” or something else? • Can blank >>>> nodes be shared among graphs? • What additional terminology >>>> (rdf:Graph etc) needs to be defined? >>>> >>>> Best, Richard >>> >>> >>> ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: >>> http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 FOAF: >>> http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: > http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 FOAF: > http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf > > > > > >
Received on Monday, 14 May 2012 09:02:40 UTC