? the graph imperative [ Re: RSP call on 10.6

good afternoon;

at the close of the call, i raised a question about why a model was chosen which requires that each element be described by statements in a single graph.

the response from the call’s participants was inconclusive as to the necessity.
“punctuation” was suggested as a reason, but that does not convince as it conflates a processing constraint with the encoding and that in turn with the data model.
as the issue is presented in the wiki, however, several alternative means would exist to effect punctuation without involving the graph term to this end.

since then call, i looked for use cases which employ such a model, but i found none.
everything i found keeps the element statements in the default graph - or at least in the same graph as the statement which associates the element with a temporal value.

if one retains the requirement, that the temporal qualification is in the default graph, then the general form of a graph pattern which would project the element is something on the order of

{ ?predicate a rsp:TemporalPredicate .
   ?element ?predicate ?temporalValueOrResource .
   { { ?element domain:predicate ?domainValue }
      union
     { graph ?element { ?subject domain:predicate ?domainValue } }
      union
     { graph domain:graph { ?element domain:predicate ?domainValue } }
   }
}

while the rsp proposal limits the model to

{ ?predicate a rsp:TemporalPredicate .
   ?element ?predicate ?temporalValueOrResource .
   { graph ?element { ?subject domain:predicate ?domainValue } }
}

problematic is, this does not describe the data models which are now used and there is no clear advantage this change.

best regards, from berlin,
---
james anderson | james@dydra.com | http://dydra.com