The W3C’s Semantic Web Activity Lead, Ivan Herman, has provided a recap of the second RDF Face-to-Face (F2F) meeting: “Most of the two days’ meeting concentrated on ‘graph identification’, i.e., what is commonly called ‘named graphs’ by the community. This discussion at the F2F was the outcome of a long series of discussion on the group’s mailing list, started, essentially, right when the group began its work. There are many issues surrounding this loose notion of named graphs, including terminology, semantics, syntax; although the F2F meeting has not solved all the problems, significant advances were achieved.”

Herman continues, “First the terminology. At the beginning of the working group’s life, Sandro Hawke proposed a ‘working’ terminology that became known as the ‘g-*’ terms in the discussions so far. The group adopted a more definite terminology as follows. An ‘(RDF) Graph’ (formerly g-snap) is used for a graph in the mathematical sense, i.e., a set of triples; thus a Graph is immutable and abstract. A ‘Graph Container’ (formerly g-box) is a concrete and usually mutable entity (e.g., a file, a database content) that has an RDF Graph as a state. Finally, an ‘RDF Serialization’ (formerly g-text) is a textual encoding of an RDF Graph in some sort accepted syntax (Turtle, RDF/XML, etc). The clear separation of concepts, for example the immutable/mutable aspect, is important, and will have to be reflected in the final documents.”

Read more here.

Image: Courtesy W3C