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

RE: (proposal) was Re: defn of Named Graph

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 12:08:24 +0200
To: <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <017901cec0e9$aa2f69b0$fe8e3d10$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Friday, October 04, 2013 4:54 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> On Oct 3, 2013, at 10:01 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> > ... as I've just re-read the definition of RDF source in Concepts, it
> > appears that its definition is wrong (or at least inconsistent):
> >
> >   We informally use the term RDF source to refer to a persistent yet
> >   source or container of RDF graphs. An RDF source is a resource that
may be
> >   said to have a state that can change over time. A snapshot of the
state can
> >   be expressed as an RDF graph
> >
> > So a RDF source may return *multiple* RDF graphs, i.e., a dataset
> No, it can return different graphs at different times, but it always
> returns a single graph.

I understand what it should say but in my opinion it doesn't (clearly

> The dataset equivalent would be a thing like a
> dataset but where the inner graphs were RDF sources, so that we would
> have 'named sources' rather than named graphs. Which is exactly what we
> need to make the idea of 'naming' to work properly. There is currently
> no terminology for this dataset-source notion, so we will have to
> invent one or adapt a current term to this wider use.

Exactly. That's why I proposed defining something like a "RDF graph

Markus Lanthaler
Received on Friday, 4 October 2013 10:08:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:33 UTC