- From: RDF Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 17:10:39 +0000
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
RDF-ISSUE-167 (stronger dataset semantics): Stronger semantics of RDF Datasets? [RDF Semantics] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/167 Raised by: Guus Schreiber On product: RDF Semantics The RDF WG has discussed during its lifetime extensively the semantics of RDF Datasets. Relevant issues include: * ISSUE-15: What is the relationship between the IRI and the triples in a dataset/quad-syntax/etc [https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/15] * ISSUE-35: Should there be an rdf:Graph construct, or something like that? [https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/35] * ISSUE-38: What new vocabulary should be added to RDF to talk about graphs? [https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/38] * ISSUE-98: Should the semantics of RDF graphs and the semantics of RDF datasets be combined into one unified semantics? [https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/98] * ISSUE-111: Should RDF Concepts define any operations on RDF datasets?[https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/111] Despite many discussions and proposals the WG decided in the end that at the moment the maximum we could do is the minimal semantics now specified in RDF Semantics. Jeremy Carroll commented that he would like to see stronger dataset semantics: * ISSUE-142: LC comment: rdfs:Graph ? comment [https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/142] The WG decided it was unable to make a change and Carroll recorded a formal objection: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2013Oct/att-0035/fo.html In response the RDF WG opened this issue and resolved to POSTPONE it. https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-10-23#resolution_3
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2013 17:10:44 UTC