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

Re: today's minutes available

From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 07:13:30 -0700
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF626F7E8B.9BC05A35-ON8825791E.004D77A3-8825791E.004E20C3@us.ibm.com>
> From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
> 
> On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 15:35 -0700, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> ...
> > Finally, although I don't know what actually triggered Sandro's 
question 
> > about whether the file contains the complete graph or not, it seems to 
me 
> > that the {} proposal makes it look like what I'm seeing is the 
complete 
> > graph when it may not be. I know it's up to us to define that there is 
no 
> > such implication but I'd rather select a syntax that is more intuitive 
and 
> > less likely to mislead a casual reader/user who may not have read the 
spec 
> > carefully enough.
> 
> I agree that {} makes it look more complete, but fwiw, I think what's
> needed is a way to make it complete....   Maybe this should be a new
> ISSUE.    I can see reasons one might want both, but it's easy to go
> from complete to incomplete with a subgraph relation, and I'm not sure
> how to go from incomplete to complete.  I guess with pointing to the
> file you got it from, which seems much trickier.

I think the on going discussion as made it clear that the question of 
conveying whether a representation of a graph is complete or not is an 
interesting question but that it is a different issue indeed. It seems 
that the question about complete graphs has eclipsed the other right now.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
Received on Monday, 3 October 2011 14:14:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:45 GMT