- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 09:25:10 -0500
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- CC: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Much better would be: RDF datasets comprise a default graph and zero or more named graphs. The graph names, which are IRIs, can be used in RDF statements. On 11/08/2012 08:32 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > Peter, > > On 8 Nov 2012, at 06:45, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >>> RDF datasets comprise a default graph and zero or more named graphs, and are used to to express metadata about RDF graphs, >> How? > By making statements about the graph name. What does this have to do with the graph itself? > >>> and to organize data by context. >> How? Ditto. > By putting data with different context in different named graphs. > >> As far as I can tell just about the only thing that the WG should say about RDF datasets is that they consist of a default graph and zero or more named graphs, and can be used to associate names with graphs. > What is wrong with making factual statements about what they are actually used for? In the primer, it might be acceptable to be so sloppy, but not, I think, in Concepts. > >> If the WG calls out two questionable uses of RDF datasets, then it should also call out all the other, less-questionable uses. Who is volunteering to enumerate all of these? > Well, how about you make a start by naming one? provenance, merging, sourcing, for starters. > > Best, > Richard peter
Received on Thursday, 8 November 2012 14:25:45 UTC