Difference between revisions of "TF-Graphs"

From RDF Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Material)
(Proposals)
Line 18: Line 18:
  
 
====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
+
 
* Quadstores in general
 
* Quadstores in general
 
* ODM RDF Metamodel (see http://www.omg.org/spec/ODM/1.0/, section 10.5, derived from Carroll et al.)
 
* ODM RDF Metamodel (see http://www.omg.org/spec/ODM/1.0/, section 10.5, derived from Carroll et al.)

Revision as of 09:49, 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

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