- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 11:39:00 +0000
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Cc: William Waites <wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk>, richard@cyganiak.de, msporny@digitalbazaar.com, public-rdf-wg@w3.org, public-linked-json@w3.org
On 2013-02-14, at 12:58, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org> wrote: > * Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com> [2013-02-14 12:12+0000] >> On 2013-02-14, at 12:05, William Waites <wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >> >>> I don't think having unnamed graphs is at all strange. RDF graphs are >>> anomalous in that they are the only kind of resource that we can talk >>> about using persistent global names but can't talk about using >>> temporary local names. I find this anomaly to be strange. >>> >>> But given Andy's remarks the last time around, I agree that this ship >>> has sailed for RDF 1.1, we'll have to wait for the next iteration to >>> fix it. >> >> I think that people who've tried to work around the "default" / "unanamed" graph (note, singular) in SPARQL can agree that's it's at best unfortunate, and at worst a giant pain in the arse. > > I understand why you mention the default graph as a cautionary tale; > it's always been a weird wart on the edge of an otherwise pretty > consistent system, leaving us with questions about how to define it, > how to transfer state, etc. > > I don't, however, think that it really informs us about the complexity > of bnode-labeled graphs (note, plural). From the perspective of > writing C code, re-using BNodes for graph labels was exactly zero > work. There was no point where I felt like it was unclear how to > implement SPARQL or dataset merging or anything else. I was more thinking from a user p.o.v., I agree that implementing it is easy. 3store had bNode graph labels - for generated graphs with inferred triples in them. But, it makes referring to those graphs in other data tricky, as you don't know what the lifetime of the identifier/label/whatever will be. - Steve >> If you have exactly one graph, then there's no issue (you never need to refer to it), but as soon as you have >1 it starts to bite you. >> >> All this thinking about trying to save bytes in the representation I find very concerning - it seems to be assuming that this data is being typed by someone - if your system has people typing in significant quantities of RDF then something is pretty odd, IMHO. We should be aiming for clarity, and unambiguity IMHO, and I don't see how anonymous graphs help. >> >> - Steve >> >> -- >> Steve Harris >> Experian >> +44 20 3042 4132 >> Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93 >> 80 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 5JL >> >> > > -- > -ericP > -- Steve Harris Experian +44 20 3042 4132 Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93 80 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 5JL
Received on Friday, 15 February 2013 11:39:29 UTC