Re: Clarifying word

I believe they
> 
>    should have a symbolic "top node" that shows that they belong to a
>    single graph even though there are subgraphs.

One could interpret this statement as a view that to 'belong' in a graph all triples must be connected to each other.

I don't know if this is the intended interpretation, but I believe a definition of a graph is simply a set of one or more triples. As per http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11-concepts-20140225/#data-model 

The triples don't necessarily have to connect to each other in order to belong in the same graph.

As for the notion of a 'subgraph', I don't believe it has been formally defined in any RDF specification. Some people may have an informal, intuitive understanding of what a subgraph may mean, but other people don't necessarily share it at all. If this term is to be used in any important way, it should be defined. However, I don't see a particular need to use it.

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 16, 2016, at 11:28 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

>> I believe they
>>    should have a symbolic "top node" that shows that they belong to a
>>    single graph even though there are subgraphs.