W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > April 2011

Re: ISSUE-30: How does SPARQL's notion of RDF dataset relate our notion of multiple graphs?

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 17:23:43 +0100
Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <784BC192-944A-4654-9530-2D2BD43DBD9F@cyganiak.de>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>

On 14 Apr 2011, at 18:09, Pat Hayes wrote:
> The 'naming' of graphs in SPARQL is a wholly SPARQL-local business,

What I want to see is an adoption of SPARQL's “naming” mechanism into the RDF data model. This would make this “SPARQL-local business” a proper part of RDF.

> unrelated to RDF semantics 

Correct, and that's not a bug, it's a feature.

This part of SPARQL is successful and useful despite being disconnected from the RDF Model Theory. RDF Datasets as they are defined in SPARQL have no impact on entailments, and therefore do not require a relation to the RDF Model Theory. Semantic extensions (like Antoine's import proposal) can of course extend the RDF Model Theory in order to explain their extended notion of entailment.

> and therefore to any RDF content. 

This does not follow. “RDF content” is the triples in the data model.

Received on Saturday, 16 April 2011 16:24:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:58 UTC