Re: Requirements for a possible "RDF 2.0"

2010/1/14 Steve Harris <>:

>> * improved support for named graphs - essentially bringing the
>> constructs included in SPARQL back into RDF core (including support
>> for named graphs in RDF/XML, done in a manner that would be
>> backwards-compatible if at all possible)
> I'm not really sure how that fits all together. If you dereference some URI,
> and get back a RDF/XML document that includes other named graphs, what then?
> Surely the grph URI of the document you fetched you be the URI you
> dereferenced.

That's certainly the elegant intuitive approach. Maybe I'm making the
mistake of engineering for engineering's sake, but I suspect there is
a role for multiple graphs in a single document/at a single
dereferenceable URI (dunno, somehow reflecting default graph/other
named graphs in SPARQL).

I don't have any genuine use cases.


Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 14:53:36 UTC