- From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 17:39:30 +0200
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- CC: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Le 16/04/2011 17:05, Richard Cyganiak a écrit : > Antoine, > > How is this different from ISSUE-35? When I wrote this issue, I was actually thinking more about the relationships between graphs (like imports, subgraph, etc) rather than the class rdf:Graph so this issue is more about the vocabulary /around/ the notion of graph. I would not mind merging the two issues or rephrasing this one if it sounds too similar. > > Best, > Richard > > > On 15 Apr 2011, at 21:06, RDF Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> RDF-ISSUE-38 (AZ): What new vocabulary should be added to RDF to talk about graphs? [RDF Graphs] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/38 >> >> Raised by: Antoine Zimmermann >> On product: RDF Graphs >> >> If it is possible to assert statements about g-*, then we may need some additional vocabulary such as a class rdf:Graph and possibly relations between them such as graph imports, subgraph, equivalent graph, etc. and maybe a property that relates an instance of rdf:Graph to its content. >> >> >> > >
Received on Saturday, 16 April 2011 15:39:56 UTC