Re: Requirements for a possible "RDF 2.0"

On 14 Jan 2010, at 14:53, Danny Ayers wrote:

> 2010/1/14 Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>:
>
>>> * 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).

Agreed, but not in the "default" syntax.

> I don't have any genuine use cases.

I do, backups (well, restores more importantly) of SPARQL stores. We  
use TriG syntax for that.

- Steve

Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 19:20:15 UTC