W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2005

[Fwd: RE: Example Errors (sections 8, 9, 10)]

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 18:30:55 +0100
Message-ID: <4320754F.2050206@hp.com>
To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

Changes made (v1.486) in accordance with this discussion on section 9.1/9.3

	Andy

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	RE: Example Errors (sections 8, 9, 10)
Date: 	Thu, 8 Sep 2005 12:15:19 -0400
From: 	Ryan Levering <RRLevering@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: 	<RRLevering@yahoo.com>
To: 	<andy.seaborne@hp.com>
CC: 	<public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>



  >> My apologies on my lack of clarity.  The query is fine in both cases,
  >> but in the data listing, the header on the default graphs is "# Default
  >> graph", which isn't nearly as clear as, for instance 9.3: "# Named
  >> graph: http://example.org/dft.ttl" which is what the query actually
uses
  >> for it's default dataset.  The point of FROM is that you're using a
  >> named graph to specify a default/background graph, so it would be
  >> clearer to actually have a name on that graph listing.
  >>
  >> Ryan Levering
  >>

  > OK - I see now.

  > Would an editorial change like:

  > ----
  > # Default graph (stored at http://example.org/foaf/aliceFoaf)
  > @prefix  foaf:  <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> .

  > _:a  foaf:name     "Alice" .
  > _:a  foaf:mbox     <mailto:alice@work.example> .
  > ----
  > adding something to the comment in the data and retaining the point
it is the
  > default graph and not using the term "naming" make it clear?

  >       Andy


Yep, that would work fine; as long as there's some mention of the URI of
that data, so the query makes more sense.

Ryan
Received on Thursday, 8 September 2005 17:33:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:24 GMT