On 9 Jul 2008, at 13:14, Story Henry wrote:
The "named graph is not standard" is less and less true.
Not really. It's just not true.
Perhaps SPARQL makes it a bit less true. "less and less" doesn't seem
right at all.
It may be a de facto standard, but that's a different issue. I'm not
clear it's a de facto standard. Just saying that tools have *some*
sort of context support doesn't support the idea of a de facto
standard. Toolkits have had that for years without a whit bit better
interop or convergence.
Some evidence that a wide range of RDF tools use a particular named
graph technique with a common serialization would be nice to have.
Perhaps it's time to standardise on the graph features of N3.
Then you could say:
{ :j1 = j2 } statement [ by henry; confidence 0.75 ] .
I think you'll find less consensus about that than you might hope :(
See the discussion leading up to:
http://www.w3.org/mid/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cheers,
Bijan.
