- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 06:32:51 -0500
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: RDF-WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On May 23, 2012, at 4:52 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> ISSUE-28 Syntactic nesting of g-texts http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/28
>
> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-28 ("Do we need syntactic nesting of graphs (g-texts) as in N3?"), saying No, we do not -- they are useful, but we can provide the same functionality with datasets.
>
> - - - - -
>
> I think there is the possibility of misunderstanding here in having 2 ways to read "provide the same functionality".
>
> The first is that any use case can be built using datasets that could be built using nested graphs (graph literals). That does not mean the technical design are the same, just they provide the same capabilities.
>
> The second is that there is a technical equivalence from a nested graph structure to a dataset.
Well, if that first really is ANY use case, I think these are in fact equivalent. But...
>
> The second is, I think, Pat's point that it (#2) requires the IRI in the <IRI,G> pair to to denote the graph.
>
> For me, the first is the important point and I'm reading the resolution as that - given datasets, we can address the use cases; we do not *need* nested graphs.
... OK, then I want to be convinced. How exactly do datasets provide the functionality that nested graphs were needed for? Either give a general construction, or a set of pithy examples.
Pat
>
> Andy
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2012 11:33:34 UTC