W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > December 2013

Re: Multigraphs example proposal in RDF 1.1 Primer

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 01:51:59 -0800
Cc: "public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4573E4FE-A2EA-4021-9DDE-F884B430BB3D@ihmc.us>
To: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@bbc.co.uk>
Option 1 works for me. I like option 2 better but I also see that it would probably get too complicated to explain in a primer. 

I would prefer to also add a slightly stronger warning to option 1, something like this at the end of the paragraph:

"Note however that RDF provides no way to convey this semantic assumption to other readers of the dataset."

Pat

On Dec 13, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@bbc.co.uk> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> After chatting with Guus, here are the options we'd like to propose for
> the multi-graphs example in the primer.
> 
> 1) After the TriG listing, adding something like "RDF 1.1 doesn't
> prescribe any specific semantics for datasets. Possible semantics are
> described in [DATASET-SEMANTICS]. In this example dataset we assume
> graph names represent the source of the RDF data held within the
> corresponding graphs, i.e. by retrieving <http://example.org/bob> we
> would get access to the four triples in that graph. In the default graph
> we associate provenance information with the <http://example.org/bob>
> graph."
> 2) Adding a statement to the example:
>    <http://example.org/bob> a eg:WebSource . (or sd:NamedGraph? or
> something else?)
> and explaining that eg:WebSource (or else) identify graph names that can
> be accessed through HTTP to retrieve the corresponding graph content.
> 3) Adding a statement to the example similar as in section 4 of
> [DATASET-SEMANTICS], on the dataset itself, to express its semantics,
> e.g.
>    <> a sd:Dataset ; eg:semantics <rdf-dataset#3.3>
> ?
> 
> To me, it seems like option 1 is probably the simplest to implement (no
> need to change the example, just adding a bit of text). Option 2 and 3
> are OK as well, but we'd need help with them - e.g. what vocabulary
> should we use?
> 
> Also, if option 2 doesn't work, we (and Markus apparently, from his
> earlier email) would like to understand why.
> 
> 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.
> -----------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St.            (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile (preferred)
phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Saturday, 14 December 2013 09:52:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:37 UTC