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

Re: [GRAPH] graph deadlock?

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:23:07 +0000
Message-ID: <4EF215FB.80409@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org


On 21/12/11 16:47, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 12/21/11 11:12 AM, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>> On 12/21/2011 3:15 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not sure that anyone is suggesting standardising otherwise
>>> (please correct me here) - the 4th slot isn't directly "denotes" the
>>> graph but that IRI does denote something, and that something is in
>>> some relationship to the graph.
>>
>> I am advocating that the IRI denotes the graph
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Why not the Graph Container?
>

The original point was whether the IRI is denoting (in the strict sense) 
one thing in the triples but denotes another thing if used in the 4th 
slot.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

If we have a fixed mechanism that the 4th slot denotes the graph and 
that is the only standard mechanism, the labelling discussion is moot.

If we have the notion of labelling (ie. it's in the pair (IRI, graph 
value) no fixed semantics to that usage ...

If the 4th slot IRI (label) is actually denoting the graph container, 
and the triples have the IRI in the object slot, that IRI must denote 
the graph container.

If the 4th slot IRI (label) is actually denoting the graph (value) and 
the triples have the IRI in the object slot, that IRI must denote the 
graph (value).

Since that attempt at pulling out what I thought was general 
understanding (there is only globally-understood denotation) didn't work 
- please ignore my message.

	Andy
Received on Wednesday, 21 December 2011 17:23:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:46 GMT