- From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 17:34:27 +0200
- To: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
The following issues: "ISSUE-35: Should there be an rdf:Graph construct, or something like that?" "ISSUE-38: What new vocabulary should be added to RDF to talk about graphs?" could be closed by saying that SPARQL 1.1 Service Description already provides a vocabulary for describing graphs, named graphs, datasets etc. sd:Graph rdfs:comment "An instance of sd:Graph represents the description of an RDF graph." . sd:NamedGraph rdfs:comment "An instance of sd:NamedGraph represents a named graph having a name (via sd:name) and an optional graph description (via sd:graph)." . sd:Dataset rdfs:comment "An instance of sd:Dataset represents a RDF Dataset comprised of a default graph and zero or more named graphs." . rdf:Graph would be redundent. There are conceptual issues, however, wrt to the service description vocabulary, in particular the fact the a sd:NamedGraph may have an entailment regime. Entailment regimes are relative to a SPARQL service, not to a <name,graph> pair alone. Of course, whatever is defined in this SD vocabulary would not impact the semantics of RDF and the semantics of these terms would not be hard coded in RDF inference engines. But I consider this as a feature, not a bug. The SD vocab provides enough flexibility to address cases which are outside the scope of pure SPARQL services. -- Antoine Zimmermann ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne 158 cours Fauriel 42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2 France Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03 Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66 http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
Received on Monday, 10 September 2012 15:35:05 UTC