W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > October 2013

Re: Minor normative error in LC drafts (ISSUE-144)

From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:19:33 +0200
Message-ID: <524C0145.1080106@vu.nl>
To: Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>
CC: "public-rdf-comments@w3.org Comments" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Dear Jeremy,

Thanks for your comment. We have raised an issue for tracking this [1]. 
We will get back to you on this.

Best,
Guus, on behalf of the RDF WG

[1] https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/144

On 01-10-13 22:23, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
>
> While preparing yet another attempt at text to suggest for my LC comment about using RDF to describe named graphs, I noted an error in the math in the LC documents.
>
> In concepts we read:
>
> [[
> An RDF dataset is a collection of RDF graphs, and comprises:
>
> 	 Exactly one default graph, being an RDF graph. The default graph does not have a name and may be empty.
> 	 Zero or more named graphs. Each named graph is a pair consisting of an IRI or a blank node (the graph name), and an RDF graph. Graph names are unique within an RDF dataset.
> ]]
>
> In semantics we read:
>
> [[
> An RDF dataset (see [RDF11-CONCEPTS]) is a finite set of RDF graphs each paired with an IRI or blank node called the graph name,
> ]]
>
>
> These are different.
>
> In particular.
>
> Concepts allows:
>
>
> <eg:a> {}
>
> <eg:b> {}
>
>
> And semantics does not, since the empty graph is not paired with a single IRI or blank node.
>
> ===
>
> Sorry for noticing this very late.
>
> Jeremy J Carroll
> Principal Architect
> Syapse, Inc.
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2013 11:20:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:29:58 UTC