ISSUE-5: Should we define Graph Literal datatypes?

Graph Literals

Should we define Graph Literal datatypes?

State:
CLOSED
Product:
RDF Graphs
Raised by:
Sandro Hawke
Opened on:
2011-03-04
Description:
We could define datatypes, such as ser:rdfxml and ser:turtle, whose
lexical space is the set of valid document strings in RDF/XML, Turtle,
etc, and whose value space contains the corresponding RDF graphs.

This would allow people to use ordinary RDF tools to express facts involving RDF graphs, such as that some graph was obtained from some URI at some point in time, or that some person claims some graph is true or false.

This would address some of the use cases for quads, reification, named
graphs, etc, with a mechanism that is very simple to understand and
relatively easy to implement.

Languages (like Turtle and RDF/XML) could be extended to provide
syntactic sugar for these literals, much as Turtle provides a nicer
syntax for numbers, but that is not necessary for these literals to be
useful and is not part of this proposal.

Some discussion in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Mar/0130.html

CLOSED
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-05-23#resolution_6
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-5 ("Should we define Graph Literal datatypes?"), saying No, we should not. ←
Related Actions Items:
No related actions
Related emails:
  1. Re: Turtle data-type (from kidehen@openlinksw.com on 2013-05-29)
  2. Re: Turtle data-type (from sandro@w3.org on 2013-05-29)
  3. Re: Draft agenda / final one in a few hours late (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2012-05-23)
  4. Re: Making progress on graphs (from phayes@ihmc.us on 2012-05-22)
  5. Re: Making progress on graphs (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2012-05-21)
  6. Re: Making progress on graphs (from phayes@ihmc.us on 2012-05-21)
  7. Re: Making progress on graphs (from guus.schreiber@vu.nl on 2012-05-18)
  8. Re: Making progress on graphs (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2012-05-18)
  9. Re: Making progress on graphs (from sandro@w3.org on 2012-05-17)
  10. Re: Making progress on graphs (from steve.harris@garlik.com on 2012-05-17)
  11. Re: Making progress on graphs (from alexhall@revelytix.com on 2012-05-16)
  12. Re: Sandro's Formal Objection (from sandro@w3.org on 2012-05-16)
  13. Re: Sandro's Formal Objection (from guus.schreiber@vu.nl on 2012-05-16)
  14. Re: Making progress on graphs (from steve.harris@garlik.com on 2012-05-16)
  15. Sandro's Formal Objection (from danbri@danbri.org on 2012-05-16)
  16. Re: Making progress on graphs (from steve.harris@garlik.com on 2012-05-16)
  17. Re: Making progress on graphs (from guus.schreiber@vu.nl on 2012-05-16)
  18. Re: Publish RDF Concepts as revised WD? (was: Re: Agenda 16 May telecon) (from steve.harris@garlik.com on 2012-05-16)
  19. Re: Making progress on graphs (from sandro@w3.org on 2012-05-16)
  20. Re: Making progress on graphs (from guus.schreiber@vu.nl on 2012-05-16)
  21. Re: Making progress on graphs (from phayes@ihmc.us on 2012-05-15)
  22. Re: Making progress on graphs (from sandro@w3.org on 2012-05-15)
  23. Re: Making progress on graphs (from phayes@ihmc.us on 2012-05-15)
  24. Publish RDF Concepts as revised WD? (was: Re: Agenda 16 May telecon) (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2012-05-15)
  25. Re: Making progress on graphs (from sandro@w3.org on 2012-05-14)
  26. Re: Making progress on graphs (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2012-05-14)
  27. Re: Making progress on graphs (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2012-05-14)
  28. Re: Making progress on graphs (from andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com on 2012-05-14)
  29. Re: Making progress on graphs (from phayes@ihmc.us on 2012-05-14)
  30. Re: Making progress on graphs (from phayes@ihmc.us on 2012-05-14)
  31. Re: Making progress on graphs (from ivan@w3.org on 2012-05-14)
  32. Re: Making progress on graphs (from ivan@w3.org on 2012-05-14)
  33. Re: Making progress on graphs (from sandro@w3.org on 2012-05-13)
  34. Re: Making progress on graphs (from andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com on 2012-05-13)
  35. Re: Making progress on graphs (from antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr on 2012-05-13)
  36. Re: Making progress on graphs (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2012-05-13)
  37. Re: Making progress on graphs (from sandro@w3.org on 2012-05-13)
  38. Re: Making progress on graphs (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2012-05-13)
  39. Re: Making progress on graphs (from kidehen@openlinksw.com on 2012-05-13)
  40. Re: Making progress on graphs (from sandro@w3.org on 2012-05-13)
  41. Re: Making progress on graphs (from ivan@w3.org on 2012-05-13)
  42. Making progress on graphs (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2012-05-13)
  43. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from lehors@us.ibm.com on 2012-04-10)
  44. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from sandro@w3.org on 2012-04-10)
  45. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from lehors@us.ibm.com on 2012-04-05)
  46. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from sandro@w3.org on 2012-04-05)
  47. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from lehors@us.ibm.com on 2012-04-04)
  48. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from lee@thefigtrees.net on 2012-04-04)
  49. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from ivan@w3.org on 2012-04-04)
  50. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from lehors@us.ibm.com on 2012-04-03)
  51. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from ivan@w3.org on 2012-04-03)
  52. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from sandro@w3.org on 2012-04-02)
  53. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from cgreer@marklogic.com on 2012-04-02)
  54. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from phayes@ihmc.us on 2012-04-02)
  55. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from ivan@w3.org on 2012-04-02)
  56. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from sandro@w3.org on 2012-04-02)
  57. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from sandro@w3.org on 2012-04-02)
  58. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from ivan@w3.org on 2012-04-02)
  59. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from sandro@w3.org on 2012-04-02)
  60. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from sandro@w3.org on 2012-04-02)
  61. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from phayes@ihmc.us on 2012-03-31)
  62. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from eric@w3.org on 2012-03-31)
  63. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from phayes@ihmc.us on 2012-03-30)
  64. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from eric@w3.org on 2012-03-30)
  65. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from ivan@w3.org on 2012-03-30)
  66. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from phayes@ihmc.us on 2012-03-29)
  67. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from eric@w3.org on 2012-03-29)
  68. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from phayes@ihmc.us on 2012-03-29)
  69. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from eric@w3.org on 2012-03-29)
  70. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from cgreer@marklogic.com on 2012-03-29)
  71. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from phayes@ihmc.us on 2012-03-29)
  72. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from ivan@w3.org on 2012-03-29)
  73. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from steve.harris@garlik.com on 2012-03-28)
  74. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from steve.harris@garlik.com on 2012-03-28)
  75. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from ivan@w3.org on 2012-03-28)
  76. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from guus.schreiber@vu.nl on 2012-03-28)
  77. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from sandro@w3.org on 2012-03-28)
  78. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from ivan@w3.org on 2012-03-28)
  79. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from sandro@w3.org on 2012-03-28)
  80. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from sandro@w3.org on 2012-03-28)
  81. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2012-03-28)
  82. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com on 2012-03-28)
  83. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from ivan@w3.org on 2012-03-28)
  84. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from steve.harris@garlik.com on 2012-03-28)
  85. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from ivan@w3.org on 2012-03-28)
  86. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com on 2012-03-28)
  87. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from ivan@w3.org on 2012-03-28)
  88. Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from lee@thefigtrees.net on 2012-03-28)
  89. New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS (from sandro@w3.org on 2012-03-27)
  90. [GRAPH] RDF WG Issues Relating to the Graph TF (from david@3roundstones.com on 2011-10-10)
  91. Re: A use case for graph literals: Schemapedia (ISSUE-5) (from steve.harris@garlik.com on 2011-04-12)
  92. Re: A use case for graph literals: Schemapedia (ISSUE-5) (from antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr on 2011-04-11)
  93. Re: A use case for graph literals: Schemapedia (ISSUE-5) (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2011-04-11)
  94. Fwd: A use case for graph literals: Schemapedia (ISSUE-5) (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2011-04-11)
  95. Re: A use case for graph literals: Schemapedia (ISSUE-5) (from steve.harris@garlik.com on 2011-04-11)
  96. Re: A use case for graph literals: Schemapedia (ISSUE-5) (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2011-04-11)
  97. Re: A use case for graph literals: Schemapedia (ISSUE-5) (from steve.harris@garlik.com on 2011-04-11)
  98. Re: A use case for graph literals: Schemapedia (ISSUE-5) (from antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr on 2011-04-11)
  99. Re: A use case for graph literals: Schemapedia (ISSUE-5) (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2011-04-08)
  100. Re: A use case for graph literals: Schemapedia (ISSUE-5) (from antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr on 2011-04-08)
  101. Re: A use case for graph literals: Schemapedia (ISSUE-5) (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2011-04-08)
  102. Re: A use case for graph literals: Schemapedia (ISSUE-5) (from antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr on 2011-04-08)
  103. Re: A use case for graph literals: Schemapedia (ISSUE-5) (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2011-04-08)
  104. Re: Fwd: A use case for graph literals: Schemapedia (ISSUE-5) (from antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr on 2011-04-08)
  105. Fwd: A use case for graph literals: Schemapedia (ISSUE-5) (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2011-04-08)
  106. A use case for graph literals: Schemapedia (ISSUE-5) (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2011-04-08)
  107. Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals) nesting and belief (from ww@styx.org on 2011-04-05)
  108. Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals) nesting and belief (from nathan@webr3.org on 2011-04-05)
  109. Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals) nesting and belief (from pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr on 2011-04-05)
  110. Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals) nesting and belief (from ww@styx.org on 2011-04-05)
  111. Re: [ALL] Raised Issues (from antoine.zimmermann@gmail.com on 2011-03-11)
  112. Re: [MISC] Deprecation (was Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs]) (from nathan@webr3.org on 2011-03-07)
  113. Re: [MISC] Deprecation (was Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs]) (from ivan@w3.org on 2011-03-07)
  114. [MISC] Deprecation (was Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs]) (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2011-03-07)
  115. Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] (from nathan@webr3.org on 2011-03-07)
  116. Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2011-03-07)
  117. Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] (from andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com on 2011-03-07)
  118. Was: Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? (from ivan@w3.org on 2011-03-07)
  119. Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] (from steve.harris@garlik.com on 2011-03-06)
  120. Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2011-03-06)
  121. Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] (from andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com on 2011-03-06)
  122. Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] (from nathan@webr3.org on 2011-03-06)
  123. Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2011-03-06)
  124. Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] (from steve.harris@garlik.com on 2011-03-06)
  125. Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] (from ivan@w3.org on 2011-03-06)
  126. Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] (from ivan@w3.org on 2011-03-06)
  127. Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] (from steve.harris@garlik.com on 2011-03-05)
  128. Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] (from steve.harris@garlik.com on 2011-03-05)
  129. Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2011-03-05)
  130. Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] (from nathan@webr3.org on 2011-03-05)
  131. Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2011-03-05)
  132. Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] (from nathan@webr3.org on 2011-03-05)
  133. Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2011-03-05)
  134. Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2011-03-05)
  135. Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] (from ivan@w3.org on 2011-03-05)
  136. Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] (from nathan@webr3.org on 2011-03-05)
  137. Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] (from nathan@webr3.org on 2011-03-05)
  138. Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] (from phayes@ihmc.us on 2011-03-05)
  139. Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2011-03-05)
  140. Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] (from phayes@ihmc.us on 2011-03-05)
  141. Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2011-03-05)
  142. Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] (from nathan@webr3.org on 2011-03-05)
  143. Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] (from steve.harris@garlik.com on 2011-03-05)
  144. Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] (from sandro@w3.org on 2011-03-05)
  145. Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] (from phayes@ihmc.us on 2011-03-04)
  146. Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] (from nathan@webr3.org on 2011-03-04)
  147. RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2011-03-04)

Related notes:

To follow up on nesting of graphs, or graph literals, or quoted graphs or anonymous graphs or g-snaps or whichever name we like for them.

Firstly, I see a strong use case for reasoning about provenance and confidence in data, the need to express beliefs about (sets of) triples, beliefs about beliefs about triples, etc.

However the scope of blank nodes comes into question. My intuition is that the answer is the scope is the enclosing graph, all the way up. So a blank node with some id in the innermost graph is the same as the blank node with the same id in the outermost, but in the case of sibling graphs the blank nodes with the same id would be different. This seems necessary to be able to talk about statements that contain blank nodes.

But if we name the graphs it isn't immediately clear that the same nesting can happen. Can a named graph be "enclosed" in another graph in the same way and particularly so that the above rules about blank node scope continue to hold?

William Waites, 1 Apr 2011, 23:22:30

Display change log ATOM feed

Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, Chair, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Staff Contacts
Tracker: documentation, (configuration for this group), originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <w3t-sys@w3.org>.
$Id: 5.html,v 1.1 2014-07-09 12:18:01 carine Exp $