- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 14:34:28 +0000
- To: antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr
- CC: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 08/03/11 14:17, Antoine Zimmermann wrote: > Richard, > > > Good starting point. > > I am in favour of using the notion of dataset from SPARQL but I have a > problem with the semantics. You say: > > "The interpretation of an RDF Dataset is that of the union of its > constituent graphs." This is not part of the definition in SPARQL. It is one way in which it's used but it's not the only way and the SPARQL definition does not prescribe that. An application may choose to use an RDF dataset in that way, either via its choice of SPARQL implementation or some via controls in the SPARQL implementation. Another common choice I see (Jena) is to have base data and the same data seen through inference. > One of the strong reasons to keep information about provenance is to > avoid spreading inconsistencies everywhere. Separating statements in > distinct boxes should avoid knowledge from disjoint contexts to intertwine. +1 Andy
Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2011 14:35:06 UTC