W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > January 2011

Re: RDF API thoughts

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 19:45:49 +0000
Message-ID: <4D2CB36D.2040602@webr3.org>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:23 UTC