- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 08:04:28 -0400
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- CC: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 9/27/2012 7:08 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > > On 26/09/12 17:41, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: >> We need to support it for compatibility, but I think it's a mistake to >> specify that anything important be put in that graph. > > There are two uses cases: you and Steve emphasis the complicated case > of multiple graphs collected from many places. > > The simple case is one graph. For that, making the publisher go > through "naming" is just overhead for them. > In the case of one graph, I'd imagine one would use RDF/XML or Turtle or what-not and use traditional ways of specifying metadata. Simple or not, I don't think that a single graph is at all a common use case for TriG, and I don't think we should design a TriG metadata approach around it. Lee
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 12:04:55 UTC