Difference between revisions of "TF-Graphs"

From RDF Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Participants)
Line 49: Line 49:
 
* [http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/User:Lfeigenb Lee Feigenbaum]
 
* [http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/User:Lfeigenb Lee Feigenbaum]
 
* [http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/User:Rcygania2 Richard Cyganiak]
 
* [http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/User:Rcygania2 Richard Cyganiak]
 +
* [http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/User:Fgandon Fabien Gandon]

Revision as of 16:32, 2 March 2011

Task Force "Graphs"

Use Cases

Member Use Cases for graphs, graph identifiers, etc.

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
  • how does it influence the OWL semantics?

Participants