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

Re: Labelled graphs

From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:02:03 -0400
Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, public-rdf-wg WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B1A0E60E-C129-485B-B489-965D061BE0B4@3roundstones.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Hi all,

On Apr 25, 2012, at 07:59, Sandro Hawke wrote:

> On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 13:34 +0200, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> On Apr 25, 2012, at 12:51 , Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 11:08 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
>>>> On 24 Apr 2012, at 13:04, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> * When the same label is used multiple times in the same dataset, the
>>>>>>> graph is
>>>>>>> assumed to be the union of the graphs labeled with it
>>>>> 
>>>>> This is the "partial-graph semantics" view, which I can live with, but
>>>>> some people have expressed opposition.  We should probably try some
>>>>> straw polling on it.
>>>> 
>>>> The choice here needs to be made carefully, to avoid unintended consequences on implementations, and data generation processes.
>>>> 
>>>> The corner cases are around bNodes (aren't they always), e.g.
>>> 
>>> I believe you're talking about a different issue here.  The question of
>>> the scope of bNode labels comes up whether we have partial- or
>>> complete-graph semantics.

Can this be resolved by stating that blank nodes have a scope of the default graph where the default graph is a union and a scope limited to their own graphs if there is no union graph?

Regards,
Dave

>>> 
>>> 6.1 says the scope of bNode labels is the document (or dataset, I
>>> suppose).  I know that gives you a memory cost, but it's important for
>>> several use cases, such as Keeping Inferred Triples Separate.
>>> 
>>> There are some SPARQL test cases for this here:
>>>       http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Graphs_Design_6.1#Blank_Nodes
>>> 
>>> I don't think you can test for it with trig entailment unless you have a
>>> way to get at the triples inside the named graphs and exposing them to
>>> RDF semantics.  Folks have been proposing doing that by flagging the
>>> dataset as a default-is-union dataset; if you can do that, then you
>>> could ask:
>>> 
>>>       Does
>>>               @default-is-union
>>>               <u1> { _:x <b> <c> }
>>>               <u2> { _:x <b> <d> }
>>>       entail
>>>               { _:y <b> <c>,<d> }
>>> 
>>> I claim the answer should be "yes".
>> 
>> 
>> I must admit I am not sure what http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Graphs_Design_6.1#Blank_Nodes (ie, that blank nodes have a file scope) mean eg, in terms of semantics. 
> 
> I don't know how the scope of blank node labels is expressed in the RDF
> semantics.   If you want, I can try to figure it out.
> 
>> If I look at the more abstract level
>> 
>> (D, (<u>,G), (<v>,H))
>> 
>> with G and H being different graphs, what does it mean that they share a blank node?
> 
> If I understand right, in the RDF Semantics, two "graphs" can't share a
> blank node.  That's why in 6.1 I said you can/should think about D, G,
> and H as subgraphs of some other graph that contains them all.   I could
> draw a diagram that made it pretty clear how they shared a node --
> they'd have arcs going to/from the same little node-circle in the
> diagram, and the different graphs would be indicated by D being drawn
> with blue arcs, G with green arcs, and H with yellow arcs. 
> 
>> Put it another way: if you have a TriG file  
>> 
>> <u1> { _:x <b> <c> }
>> <u2> { _:x <q> <r> }
>> 
>> what is the abstract RDF dataset for this? 
> 
> I don't know how to type that dataset in ascii.  As a diagram, it looks
> like the diagram for { [] <b> <c>; <q> <r> } except that the "b" arc is
> colored so we know it's in u1 and the "q" arc is colored so we know it's
> in u2.
> 
>> Unless of course all blank nodes are skolemized by TriG before generating a dataset
> 
> This global-scope-blank-nodes rule would show up in a skolemizing test
> case.   I'm not sure how we're going to write down these test cases, or
> if we're going to define Skolemizing for trig.  But if we did:
> 
> your example TriG file COULD be Skolemized to:
> 
>  <u1> { <http://example.org/.well-known/genid/1 <b> <c> }  
>  <u2> { <http://example.org/.well-known/genid/1 <b> <c> }
> 
> but it COULD NOT be Skolemized to:
> 
>  <u1> { <http://example.org/.well-known/genid/1 <b> <c> }  
>  <u2> { <http://example.org/.well-known/genid/2 <b> <c> }
> 
>    -- Sandro
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 13:02:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:04 UTC