Relative URI, ..., Graphs and IO support #379
Conversation
|
What's the use of relative URI support? It goes beyond standard RDF. |
Just a quick philosophical point: Standards define agreed upon conventions, they don't limit what is possible, or else there could be no evolution. Relative Graphs are useful for LDP when posting to a container, and a number of other use cases. This addition is typesafe in that it makes sure relative graphs, relative triples and relative uris are supersets of graphs, triples and URIs and that certain things cannot be done with relative graphs, such as merging them with another graph. So this makes it easier to work with those things and avoids mistakes that could arise by mistakenly taking the union of a relative graph and another one. |
|
It feels like you are conflating the syntax level (where relative URIs are useful) with the conceptual RDF model. |
Perhaps you are right here. Perhaps there is no need for a relative graph, and one should rather have a stream of relative triples. Ie, there is no need to index relative triples, ... Otherwise I am not sure there is confusion since relative graphs and normal graphs are different types. |
|
@namedgraph and others following this, to make sense of my sentence
especially for those coming from Set theory, it might help to have an intuitive presentation of the difference between set theory and type theory. Thorsten Altenkirch's talk on Naive Type theory does just that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNG53SA4n48 Then with that in mind you may also want to look in particular at the opaque types documentation of Scala 3, as that is being used here. |
Add diesel support, update to scala 3.3.0, disable rdf4j due to scala bug (which is being fixed)
Enable fatal warnings
suporting Graphs with relative URLs in a type-safe way: two rGraphs cannot be merged.
(requires rURI, rTriple too).
This allows one to have specialised IO that create rGraphs or produce formats with relative URLs.