- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:20:51 +0100
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 25/10/12 15:25, Steve Harris wrote: > In principle I'm +1 on this, but we don't use default/anonymous graphs either, so I'd like to hear from people who do. Would this would be an OK solution? > what are you suggesting? - TriG not to have a default graph or - making the examples of metadata not use the default graph. Andy > It would certainly simplify the spec text, and it would make the parallel with NQuads more obvious. > > I have no feel for how many TriG files there out in the wild with anonymous graph contents. > > - Steve > > On 24 Oct 2012, at 17:29, Yves Raimond wrote: > >> Hello! >> >> Just jumping on the last point that was mentioned in today's telecon, about possibly not providing any statements about what to do with a TriG default graph. I have the feeling that not doing that actually defeats the point of having a default graph at all. >> >> If we can't get to an agreement on that first point, I'd really like to understand what the rationale is behind supporting default graphs in TriG, apart from backward-compatibility. When used at the BBC, default graphs have proven to be a very confusing feature, and not having any statement on what do with them would only add to the confusion. >> >> All the dataset metadata that is supposed to go in that default graph could perfectly go in another named graph, e.g. identified by the URI of the sd:Dataset in the SPARQL end-point you're generating a TriG dump from, or the URI of the TriG file itself. Personally, I'd favour a 'flat' version of TriG, where everything is a named graph. >> >> Best, >> Yves >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> http://www.bbc.co.uk >> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and >> may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. >> If you have received it in >> error, please delete it from your system. >> Do not use, copy or disclose the >> information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender >> immediately. >> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails >> sent or received. >> Further communication will signify your consent to >> this. >> ----------------------------- >
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2012 15:21:19 UTC