remove an outdated link
authorRichard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Mon, 28 May 2012 15:39:12 +0100
changeset 410 62c62c29cb8d
parent 409 c69d0ef4414f
child 411 e11784edb82f
remove an outdated link
rdf-concepts/index.html
--- a/rdf-concepts/index.html	Wed May 23 11:52:18 2012 -0700
+++ b/rdf-concepts/index.html	Mon May 28 15:39:12 2012 +0100
@@ -34,7 +34,6 @@
 //          previousMaturity:  "REC",
 
           // if there a publicly available Editor's Draft, this is the link
-//@@@
           edDraftURI:           "http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html",
 
           // if this is a LCWD, uncomment and set the end of its review period
@@ -55,7 +54,6 @@
               { name: "Richard Cyganiak", url: "http://richard.cyganiak.de/",
                 company: "DERI, NUI Galway", companyURL: "http://www.deri.ie/",
               },
-// @@@ Details for David?
               { name: "David Wood", // url: "http://example.org/",
                 company: "3 Round Stones", companyURL:
 								"http://www.3roundstones.com/",
@@ -63,21 +61,18 @@
           ],
           otherContributors: {
               "Previous editor": [
-// @@@ Graham's affiliation has changed
                   { name: "Graham Klyne",
-                    url: "http://www.ninebynine.org/",
+                    //url: "http://www.ninebynine.org/",
                     company: "Nine by Nine",
                     //companyURL: "http://example.com/"
                     //mailto: "[email protected]",
                   },
-// @@@ Jeremy's affiliation has changed
                   { name: "Jeremy J. Carroll",
                     //url: "http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/jjc/",
                     company: "Hewlett Packard Labs",
                     //companyURL: "http://example.com/"
                     //mailto: "[email protected]",
                   },
-// @@@ Brian's affiliation has changed
                   { name: "Brian McBride",
                     //url: "http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/bwm/",
                     company: "Hewlett Packard Labs",
@@ -323,7 +318,7 @@
     <h3>Merging and Managing RDF Graphs</h3>
 
     <p class="issue">This section should explain terminology around
-    <a href="#section-multigraph">working with multiple graphs</a>,
+    <a href="#section-dataset">working with multiple graphs</a>,
     and explain the fact that graphs merge easily.
     This will be added once the Working Group has finalised a design.</p>
 
@@ -647,6 +642,66 @@
 </section>
 
 
+<section id="section-dataset">
+    <h2>RDF Datasets</h2>
+
+    <p>The RDF data model expresses information as
+    <a title="RDF graph">RDF graphs</a> consisting of
+    <a title="triple">triples</a> with subject, predicate and object.
+    Often, one wants to hold multiple RDF graphs and record information
+    about each graph, allowing an application to work with datasets
+    that involve information from more than one graph.</p>
+
+    <p>An <dfn>RDF Dataset</dfn> is a collection of
+    <a title="RDF graph">RDF graphs</a> and comprises:</p>
+
+    <ul>
+    <li>Exactly one <dfn>default graph</dfn>, being an <a>RDF graph</a>.
+    The default graph does not have a name and MAY be empty.</li>
+    <li>Zero or more <dfn title="named graph">named graphs</dfn>.
+    Each named graph is a pair consisting of an <a>IRI</a>
+    (the <dfn>graph name</dfn>), and an <a>RDF graph</a>.
+    Graph names are unique within an RDF dataset.</li>
+    </ul>
+
+    <div class="issue">
+        <p>The Working Group will standardize a model and semantics for
+        multiple graphs and graphs stores. The
+        <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/01/rdf-wg-charter">charter</a> notes:</p>
+
+        <blockquote>The RDF Community has used the
+        term “named graphs” for a number of years in various settings,
+        but this term is ambiguous, and often refers to what could rather
+        be referred as quoted graphs, graph literals, IRIs for graphs,
+        knowledge bases, graph stores, etc. The term “Support for Multiple
+        Graphs and Graph Stores” is used as a neutral term in this charter;
+        this term is not and should not be considered as definitive.
+        The Working Group will have to define the right term(s).</blockquote>
+
+        <p>Progress on the design for this feature is tracked under multiple
+        issues:</p>
+
+        <ul>
+            <li><a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/14">ISSUE-14: What is a named graph and what should we call it?</a></li>
+            <li><a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/15">ISSUE-15: What is the relationship between the IRI and the triples in a dataset/quad-syntax/etc</a></li>
+            <li><a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/17">ISSUE-17: How are RDF datasets to be merged?</a></li>
+            <li><a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/22">ISSUE-22: Does multigraph syntax need to support empty graphs?</a></li>
+            <li><a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/32">ISSUE-32: Can we identify both g-boxes and g-snaps?</a></li>
+        </ul>
+        <p>The design presented here should be considered a preliminary proposal. It is based on RDF Datasets as <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#rdfDataset">defined in SPARQL 1.1</a>.</p>
+    </div>
+
+    <p class="note">When RDF graphs are merged, their blank nodes must be kept
+    distinct if meaning is to be preserved; this may call for re-allocation of
+    blank node identifiers.</p>
+    </div>
+
+    <p class="issue">Should “Graph merge” be defined in this spec?
+    If not, then the previous note could just as well go. This will be
+    decided once a multigraph design has been decided upon.</p>
+</section>
+
+
 <section id="section-Datatypes">
     <h2>Datatypes</h2>
 
@@ -1053,71 +1108,6 @@
 </section>
 
 
-<section id="section-multigraph">
-    <h2>Abstract Syntax for Working with Multiple Graphs</h2>
-
-    <p>The RDF data model expresses information as
-    <a title="RDF graph">RDF graphs</a> consisting of
-    <a title="triple">triples</a> with subject, predicate and object.
-    Often, one wants to hold multiple RDF graphs and record information
-    about each graph, allowing an application to work with datasets
-    that involve information from more than one graph.</p>
-
-    <p>An <dfn>RDF Dataset</dfn> is a collection of
-    <a title="RDF graph">RDF graphs</a> and comprises:</p>
-
-    <ul>
-    <li>Exactly one <dfn>default graph</dfn>, being an <a>RDF graph</a>.
-    The default graph does not have a name and MAY be empty.</li>
-    <li>Zero or more <dfn title="named graph">named graphs</dfn>.
-    Each named graph is a pair consisting of an <a>IRI</a>
-    (the <dfn>graph name</dfn>), and an <a>RDF graph</a>.
-    Graph names are unique within an RDF dataset.</li>
-    </ul>
-
-    <div class="issue">
-        <p>The Working Group will standardize a model and semantics for
-        multiple graphs and graphs stores. The
-        <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/01/rdf-wg-charter">charter</a> notes:</p>
-
-        <blockquote>The RDF Community has used the
-        term “named graphs” for a number of years in various settings,
-        but this term is ambiguous, and often refers to what could rather
-        be referred as quoted graphs, graph literals, IRIs for graphs,
-        knowledge bases, graph stores, etc. The term “Support for Multiple
-        Graphs and Graph Stores” is used as a neutral term in this charter;
-        this term is not and should not be considered as definitive.
-        The Working Group will have to define the right term(s).</blockquote>
-
-        <p>Progress on the design for this feature is tracked under multiple
-        issues:</p>
-
-        <ul>
-            <li><a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/5">ISSUE-5: Should we define Graph Literal datatypes?</a></li>
-            <li><a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/14">ISSUE-14: What is a named graph and what should we call it?</a></li>
-            <li><a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/15">ISSUE-15: What is the relationship between the IRI and the triples in a dataset/quad-syntax/etc</a></li>
-            <li><a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/17">ISSUE-17: How are RDF datasets to be merged?</a></li>
-            <li><a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/22">ISSUE-22: Does multigraph syntax need to support empty graphs?</a></li>
-            <li><a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/28">ISSUE-28: Do we need syntactic nesting of graphs (g-texts) as in N3?</a></li>
-            <li><a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/29">ISSUE-29: Do we support SPARQL's notion of "default graph"?</a></li>
-            <li><a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/30">ISSUE-30: How does SPARQL's notion of RDF dataset relate our notion of multiple graphs?</a></li>
-            <li><a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/32">ISSUE-32: Can we identify both g-boxes and g-snaps?</a></li>
-            <li><a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/33">ISSUE-33: Do we provide a way to refer to sub-graphs and/or individual triples?</a></li>
-        </ul>
-        <p>The design presented here should be considered a straw man proposal at this point. It is based on RDF Datasets as <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#rdfDataset">defined in SPARQL 1.1</a>.</p>
-    </div>
-
-    <p class="note">When RDF graphs are merged, their blank nodes must be kept
-    distinct if meaning is to be preserved; this may call for re-allocation of
-    blank node identifiers.</p>
-    </div>
-
-    <p class="issue">Should “Graph merge” be defined in this spec?
-    If not, then the previous note could just as well go. This will be
-    decided once a multigraph design has been decided upon.</p>
-</section>
-
-
 <section id="section-fragID" class="informative">
     <h2>Fragment Identifiers</h2>
 
@@ -1189,6 +1179,7 @@
   <h2>Changes from RDF 2004</h2>
 
   <ul>
+    <li>2012-05-24: Moved the multigraph section to an earlier position and renamed it to “<a href="#section-dataset">RDF Datasets</a>”</li>
     <li>2012-05-17: Changed normative reference for DOM in <code><a>rdf:XMLLiteral</a></code> from [DOM3CORE] to [DOM4] as we need DOM4 anyways for <code><a>rdf:HTML</a></code></li>
     <li>2012-05-17: Added <code><a>rdf:HTML</a></code> datatype (<a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/63">ISSUE-63</a>)</li>
     <li>2012-05-17: Added <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#duration"><code>xsd:duration</code></a> to list of <a>RDF-compatible XSD types</a> (<a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/88">ISSUE-88</a>)</li>