- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 16:52:57 +0100
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 26/05/12 16:19, Ivan Herman wrote: >>> 3.2 Quad and Quadset >> >> Why is this needed? Propose remove. > > I am lukewarm about this, I must say. On the one hand, indeed, we > could have named graphs (or whatever we call them) defined without > explicit quads. One the other hand: shouldn't we, somewhere in our > documents (remember that I look at this document as a 'gathering > place') define quads? After all, they *are* widely used, and some > sort of a relationships to named graphs should be defined somewhere. > > So I am not sure myself... But I am not as clear-cut as you are. I think it can be useful to state what a quad is (maybe "define", maybe not), but it is an implementation technique and it is not the only one for datasets. Andy
Received on Saturday, 26 May 2012 15:53:27 UTC