- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 13:10:43 +0100
- To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 2012-09-27, at 13:04, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > 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. Exactly. - Steve -- Steve Harris, CTO Garlik, a part of Experian +44 7854 417 874 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93 80 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 5JL
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 12:11:20 UTC