W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > April 2012

Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 08:25:18 +0100
Message-ID: <4F7BF75E.4000501@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org


On 03/04/12 01:27, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>> There's some misunderstanding here, yes.   Maybe you can talk through
>>> >  >  some particular thing you imagine doing, involving merging and TriG, and
>>> >  >  I'll be able to pick it up.   From what you've written, I'm confused.
>>> >  >
>>> >  >  Maybe I can clarifying by translating this TriG document:
>>> >  >
>>> >  >            <u1>    {<a>    <b>    <c>   }
>>> >  >
>>> >  >  into this English declaration:
>>> >  >
>>> >  >            The URI 'u1' denotes something, and that thing has exactly one
>>> >  >            associated RDF Graph.   That associated RDF graph consists of
>>> >  >            one RDF triple, which we can write in turtle as "<a>   <b>   <c>".
>> >
>> >
>> >  Clearer, but not what I would have expected.
>> >
>> >  Why "exactly one associated RDF Graph"?
> My intuition is that there are important thing you can't do if you allow
> more than one graph to be associated with the named object, but I
> haven't really explored that because SPARQL datasets clearly allow only
> one GRAPH for a given name, so I figured we'd stick with that.  That's
> why I said hasGraph was a functional property.

A query executes at some (idealized) point in time, and a query closes 
the world to execute (or they'd never complete!).   An RDF Dataset is 
the local concept for the data being queried - there's no statement 
about anything outside the local context made, or needed for SPARQL.

	Andy
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2012 07:25:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:03 UTC