- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 19:45:49 +0000
- To: Simon Reinhardt <simon.reinhardt@koeln.de>
- CC: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Simon Reinhardt wrote: > Nathan wrote: >> Ivan Herman wrote: >>> On Jan 11, 2011, at 16:10 , Nathan wrote: >>>> 2: The inclusion of Graph Literals >>>> - because they may very well be included in the next revision of >>>> RDF, as per the potential RDF WG draft charter. >>>> >>> >>> Per proposed charter: >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2010/09/rdf-wg-charter.html#outofscope >>> >>> this is explicitly listed as out of scope! >>> >>> I am not saying we should not have it in the RDF API (I have not >>> really made up my mind yet) but we should have our facts right... >>> Sorry:-) >> >> Apologies, I was reading the >> http://www.w3.org/2010/09/rdf-wg-charter.html#scope section wrt >> "Support for Multiple Graphs and Graph Stores" ... "... as quoted >> graphs, graph literals" - hence why I mentioned the RDF WG in this >> context. > > Which bit of the charter says it would be out of scope? > I can only imagine that graphs wouldn't be defined as a type of literal > but rather a new node type. Because graphs in triples aren't very useful > if you can't use them in subject position and the charter doesn't want > to allow literals in subject position. which leads to the interesting question "what is the datatype of a graph?"
Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2011 19:46:51 UTC