W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: page about the term "named graphs"

From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 19:32:49 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTikAhTHVvbStwpbWhwySD1c-aMagNT_B-JAPDVug@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
under graph-1, you ask:
[...] g = { <a> <b> _:x } and h = { <a> <b> _:x }, does g=h?
but you most likely wanted to use different bnode labels there because
otherwise the answer would be a trivial yes in a graph-1 setting.
In the RDF semantics doc it says that such graphs are equivalent and
that, for simplicity, such equivalent graphs are treated as identical
within the spec, but that still means that they are "only" equivalent
and they are not identical in general.

On 22 July 2010 05:43, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
> I've enumerated the definitions I've heard used for [RDF] "Graph" and
> [RDF] "Named Graph", here:
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Graph
> I don't expect to argue for any changes to SPARQL documents around this
> (except possible in the SD terminology and phrasing), but while some of
> us are thinking about it, I'd love to gather the input.   Off-list is
> fine.
> Ivan and I need to be able to speak about this intelligently in the RDF
> chartering discussions, and I'd like to give that group a head start on
> this issue if I can.
> FWIW, my guess is that most of us mean NamedGraph-4 when we say "Named
> Graph" and that it's NamedGraph-1 that TimBL dislikes so much.
>     -- Sandro

Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 309
Computing Laboratory
Parks Road
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1865 283520
Received on Tuesday, 10 August 2010 18:33:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:01 UTC