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

ISSUE-28 - two readings?

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 10:52:00 +0100
Message-ID: <4FBCB340.9020501@epimorphics.com>
To: RDF-WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
ISSUE-28 Syntactic nesting of g-texts 

     PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-28 ("Do we need syntactic nesting of graphs 
(g-texts) as in N3?"), saying No, we do not -- they are useful, but we 
can provide the same functionality with datasets.

- - - - -

I think there is the possibility of misunderstanding here in having 2 
ways to read "provide the same functionality".

The first is that any use case can be built using datasets that could be 
built using nested graphs (graph literals).  That does not mean the 
technical design are the same, just they provide the same capabilities.

The second is that there is a technical equivalence from a nested graph 
structure to a dataset.

The second is, I think, Pat's point that it (#2) requires the IRI in the 
<IRI,G> pair to to denote the graph.

For me, the first is the important point and I'm reading the  resolution 
as that - given datasets, we can address the use cases; we do not *need* 
nested graphs.

Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2012 09:52:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:18 UTC