TF-Graphs
From RDF Working Group Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
(→Material) |
(→Material) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
[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. | ||
| - | ===Pros=== | + | ====Pros==== |
* widely used by the community | * widely used by the community | ||
* part of SPARQL already | * part of SPARQL already | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
* clarify confusion in implementation | * clarify confusion in implementation | ||
| - | ===Cons=== | + | ====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 17: | 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 29: | Line 29: | ||
* hypergraphs (as a general mathematical domain) | * hypergraphs (as a general mathematical domain) | ||
| - | ===Technical Issues=== | + | ====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? | ||
Revision as of 09:47, 18 February 2011
Contents |
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
- 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
- Quadstores in general
- ODM RDF Metamodel (see http://www.omg.org/spec/ODM/1.0/, section 10.5, derived from Carroll et al.)
- Michel Chein and Marie-Laure Mugnier. Positive nested conceptual graphs. In Proceedings of ICCS '97, volume 1257 of LNAI, pages 95-109, Springer, 1997. (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.30.3644) ; Nested Graphs: A Graph-based Knowledge Representation Model with FOL Semantics (1998) ( http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.37.5256 )
- SPARQL Specifications (RDF Datasets) and related to that, Axel's proposal to base the work on RDF Datasets (see IRC)
- Notation 3, Tim Berners-Lee, 1998 http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Notation3
- ideas from the Topic Maps work (see also SWBPD WG note, http://www.w3.org/TR/rdftm-survey/)
- “Triplesets: Tagging and Grouping in RDF Datasets”, http://www.w3.org/2009/12/rdf-ws/papers/ws24, Atanas Kiryakov, Vassil Momtchev
- hypergraphs (as a general mathematical domain)
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
