update RDF dataset discussion #151
Conversation
Add explicit comparison of SPARQL 1.2 and RDF 1.2, vs SPARQL 1.1, RDF 1.1, and RDF 1.0. Might also want specific difference with SPARQL 1.0. This specificity may not be needed for users who have never before encountered RDF or SPARQL, but I think it helpful for users who *have* worked with any previous version(s) — like me.
|
Note that we do discuss changes to RDF in the Abstract:
RDF 1.0 did not have named graphs, and therefore a discussion of the use of IRIs for graph names is not appropriate. (SPARQL 1.0 had it's own concept of named graphs). |
| @@ -1021,11 +1021,13 @@ <h2>RDF Datasets</h2> | |||
| can avoid interoperability issues by not ascribing importance to | |||
| the presence or absence of empty named graphs.</p> | |||
|
|
|||
| <p>SPARQL 1.2 [[SPARQL12-QUERY]] uses | |||
| <p>Version 1.2 of the SPARQL Query Language [[SPARQL12-QUERY]] uses | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's all SPARQL specs which is why it says SPARQL 1.2.
The link is provided because that is the starting point. Arguably, the link could be removed.
| and RDF version 1.0 | ||
| only allowed graph names to be IRIs.</p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Better to remove this.
RDF 1.0 didn't mention datasets at all nor were they concurrent.
This is a note. RDF 1.1 is 10 years old.
Add explicit comparison of SPARQL 1.2 and RDF 1.2, vs SPARQL 1.1, RDF 1.1, and RDF 1.0. Might also want specific difference with SPARQL 1.0.
This specificity may not be needed for users who have never before encountered RDF or SPARQL, but I think it helpful for users who have worked with any previous version(s) — like me.
Preview | Diff