Difference between revisions of "TF-Graphs"

From RDF Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Task Force "Graphs")
(Material)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
== Material ==
 
== Material ==
  
* [http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/index.php?title=RDF_Core_Work_Items#Graph_Identification Suggestions called "Graph Identification" from Stanford Workshop] are reproduced below:
+
[http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/index.php?title=RDF_Core_Work_Items#Graph_Identification Suggestions called "Graph Identification" from Stanford Workshop] are reproduced below.
 
+
{{CharterItem
+
|pro=
+
  
 +
===Pros===
 
* widely used by the community
 
* widely used by the community
 
* part of SPARQL already
 
* part of SPARQL already
Line 13: Line 11:
 
* clarify confusion in implementation
 
* clarify confusion in implementation
  
|con=
+
===Cons===
 
+
 
* adds complication and may not solve the issue nevertheless
 
* adds complication and may not solve the issue nevertheless
 
* complicates the RDF model (potentially)
 
* complicates the RDF model (potentially)
Line 20: Line 17:
 
* does it need standardization?
 
* does it need standardization?
  
|proposals=
+
===Proposals===
 
+
 
* Named graphs, provenance and trust , Jeremy Carroll, Christian Bizer, Patrick Hayes, Patrick Stickler, WWW 2005, http://www.w3.org/2009/12/rdf-ws/p613.pdf,
 
* Named graphs, provenance and trust , Jeremy Carroll, Christian Bizer, Patrick Hayes, Patrick Stickler, WWW 2005, http://www.w3.org/2009/12/rdf-ws/p613.pdf,
 
http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/bizer/SWTSGuide/carroll-ISWC2004.pdf
 
http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/bizer/SWTSGuide/carroll-ISWC2004.pdf
Line 33: Line 29:
 
* hypergraphs (as a general mathematical domain)
 
* hypergraphs (as a general mathematical domain)
  
|techIssues=
+
===Technical Issues===
 
+
 
* mutual roles of quads vs. singleton named graphs vs. named graphs
 
* mutual roles of quads vs. singleton named graphs vs. named graphs
 
* extension the RDF(S) semantics?
 
* extension the RDF(S) semantics?
Line 46: Line 41:
 
* relationships to SPARQL
 
* relationships to SPARQL
 
* effects on the SW stack
 
* effects on the SW stack
 
|willingToEdit=
 
 
Axel Polleres, Thomas Lörtsch, Fabien Gandon, Elisa Kendall, Jeremy Carroll
 
}}
 

Revision as of 09:46, 18 February 2011

Task Force "Graphs"

Material

Suggestions called "Graph Identification" from Stanford Workshop are reproduced below.

Pros

  • widely used by the community
  • part of SPARQL already
  • numerous use cases
  • clarify confusion in implementation

Cons

  • adds complication and may not solve the issue nevertheless
  • complicates the RDF model (potentially)
  • risks with backward compatibility should be assessed (e.g., syntax)
  • does it need standardization?

Proposals

http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/bizer/SWTSGuide/carroll-ISWC2004.pdf

Technical Issues

  • mutual roles of quads vs. singleton named graphs vs. named graphs
  • extension the RDF(S) semantics?
  • new RDF(S) terms? rdf:Graph, rdf:subGraphOf, rdf:equivalentGraph, etc.
  • syntax (TRIG, INRIA Member submission, Web, Graphs and Semantics , n3)
  • graph inclusion, can named graphs share triples
  • whether blank nodes can be shared among multiple graphs
  • whether blank nodes can be used as graph names
  • named graphs do not fully replace reification
  • how would follow your nose apply to named graphs?
  • relationships to SPARQL
  • effects on the SW stack