- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 20:41:56 -0400
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: RDF-WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 17:33 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote: > 1/ Scenario: > > A site publishes a page, in RDFa, with triples in it. > > The site replaces that page, with one saying, "changes in progress, > please come back later" with no triples. > > Recording this seems like a reason to have empty named graphs. I agree it's useful, I just don't know how to make it work with partial-graph semantics. See "subset semantics" in recent message, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0650.html If <g1> { } and <g1> { :a :b :c } entails <g1> { :a :b :c } then information was the first graph conveying? I think it was conveying that <g1> had at least no triples, which isn't conveying much at all. I think this use case could be addressed with a vocabulary instead of syntax, as you suggest I think for dealing with quadstores. That is, instead of allowing in a dataset: <g> { } we could put in the default graph something like: <g> a rdf:EmptyResource. It's certainly not as elegant, though. (and not compatible with existing SPARQL systems.) Oh. I guess with partial-graph semantics (aka subset semantics) one could also make it complete with a count of the triples. So <g> { :a :b 1,2,3 }. <g> rdf:tripleCount 3. would tell us <g> has those three triples and ONLY those three triples. With that, the complete-graph-semantics dataset: <g> { } could be conveyed by the partial-graph-semantics dataset: <g> rdf:tripleCount 0. Still not elegant, but it might be about as simple as possible. -- Sandro > 2/ The default graph can be empty. > > 3/ A point made has been that N-quads can't represent an empty named graph. > > A syntax fix could be: > > _ <http://space> . > > or other style indicate a space name. > > > To my reading, the spaces document works if "quads" are removed, not > that I'm suggesting that. > > How about defining as a convenience of useful vocabulary rather than > core definition? > > Andy > >
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2012 00:41:59 UTC