- From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 12:46:20 -0400
- To: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Hi all, The open issues relating to the Graph TF are at [1]. We have had some substantial discussion regarding the following, and perhaps the beginning of a consensus. I propose to discuss them at the ftf: ISSUE-30 How does SPARQL's notion of RDF dataset relate our notion of multiple graphs? ISSUE-29 Do we support SPARQL's notion of "default graph"? ISSUE-32 Can we identify both g-boxes and g-snaps? These two seem related to me. Should they be combined? ISSUE-15 What is the relationship between the IRI and the triples in a dataset/quad-syntax/etc ISSUE-14 What is a named graph and what should we call it? These might also be collapsed? ISSUE-5 Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? ISSUE-35: Should there be an rdf:Graph construct, or something like that? The one most likely to continue to cause us trouble seems to me to be this one: ISSUE-33 Do we provide a way to refer to sub-graphs and/or individual triples? What do others think? This completes my (apparently unrecorded) action item from the last telecon. Regards, Dave [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/open?sort=product
Received on Monday, 10 October 2011 16:47:24 UTC