W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > March 2019

Various comments

From: Amirouche Boubekki <amirouche.boubekki@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 02:13:22 +0100
Message-ID: <CAL7_Mo9qpZxrBb1uhOWjw1GCa7k-LrEh-SuFYrCHV4inH5WZTg@mail.gmail.com>
To: semantic-web@w3.org
*> Reduce the jargon*

https://github.com/w3c/EasierRDF/issues/59

Getting started with RDF by considering that subjects are URIs and
predicate some kind of URI and object can be some data types is very
complicated. Considering that URIs are data types is strange.

IMO Datomic (which completly avoid the RDF vocabulary for some reason...)
speak in term of Entity Attribute Value (which might be somewhat misleading
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity%E2%80%93attribute%E2%80%93value_model>).


*I think that `Identifier` `Key` `Value` could be a good middle ground*, it
reuse existing software engineering vocabulary while being backward
compatible with the original triple `Subject` `Predicate` `Object`.

*> I would like to be able to say that one graph is composed of several
other graphs. Or I would like to apply a reasoner to one graph, to produce
results in another graph.*

https://github.com/w3c/EasierRDF/issues/57

This should not be in any standard. I think the best approach to named
graphs is the quad store. Basically, it a triple store with an extra column
that one might call Collection instead. Then getting composition of
collection is an advanced use which boils down to symlink a collection
inside another collection. Anyway, I already thought about things it is
very advanced and difficult to query anyway.


*Also, it is not clear to me how in the current SPARQL specification one
can query across *
* graphs.*
Received on Saturday, 23 March 2019 01:13:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:51:24 UTC