W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > February 2019

Re: Slides for Berlin Data Workshop

From: james anderson <james@dydra.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 21:03:11 +0000
Message-ID: <0102016930c4b445-8739fb1a-d4b2-4e61-b042-af2da7494a11-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com>
To: Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
good evening;

> On 2019-02-27, at 21:03:28, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Feb 27, 2019, at 2:28 AM, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr> wrote:
>> 
>>> ...
>> 
>> Yes, in absence of standards that tell how named graphs should be
>> interpreted, IRI-named-graphs _could_ be interpreted differently from bnode-named-graphs. But I expect that those who have their idea about how to interpret IRI-named-graphs would not be happy that bnode-named-graphs should be interpret in a different way.
>> That's why a strong assertion like "the only reasonable interpretation" is daring.
> 
> I think we’ll need to figure out how to properly state this at some point, as the pattern of using anonymously named graphs seems to be taking. Perhaps a condition on blank nodes such that if they are used to name a graph that the (n,g) tuple becomes an interpretation of that blank node, such that any statement made about the blank node is a statement on the name/graph pair.

this is the approach suggested by the rdf stream processing group.

    http://streamreasoning.github.io/RSP-QL/RSP_Requirements_Design_Document/#rdf-stream

---
james anderson | james@dydra.com | http://dydra.com
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2019 21:03:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 February 2019 21:03:42 UTC