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

Re: complete graphs

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 17:08:22 +0100
Cc: Ian Davis <Ian.Davis@talis.com>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, public-rdf-prov@w3.org
Message-Id: <0FB7B480-B707-4443-A876-DAD71DFB3204@cyganiak.de>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
On 3 Oct 2011, at 03:59, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> For example, :G1 below is a name for the graph containing triples that state that {:s1 :p1 :o1.} was published yesterday at <http://example.com/>.
>> 
>> :G1 {
>>    [] a :Publishing;
>>       :date "2011-09-30"^^xsd:date;
>>       :webAddress <http://example.com/>;
>>       :triples :G2.
>> }
>> :G2 {
>>    :s1 :p1 :o1.
>> }
> 
> If G2 is only a "label" (or only a pseudo-name, ie not really denoting) then this does not work, because the use of G2 in the triple in G1 has to follow the RDF semantic rules, and it might not refer to the graph in that case.

Let's look at two URIs in that graph: G2 and <http://example.com/>.

As far as I can tell, RDF Semantics tells us nothing about the referents of either of these URIs, except that they're in a certain relationship to the blank node in the graph.

I take it you accept that <http://example.com/> denotes a particular web resource that exists out there in the world, external to our graph G1?

Personally I find it easy to accept that :G2 denotes a particular named graph the exists in the same dataset, external to our graph G1.

I certainly don't see anything in RDF Semantics that contradicts this.

Best,
Richard
Received on Tuesday, 4 October 2011 16:10:19 GMT

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