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

Re: 6.3 -- proposal for (informal) dataset semantics

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 19:54:28 +0100
Message-ID: <4F9AEB64.7040900@epimorphics.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
CC: public-rdf-wg@w3.org

>     Comments: I believe this definition is formally equivalent to the
>     SPARQL definitions and the one in our draft, except (1) some minor
>     terminology, (2) allowing blank nodes as graph labels, and (3)
>     allowing blank nodes to be shared between the graphs.

So why write a new definition?  All this does is mean that W3C has two 
definitions of the same thing.


>     I expect the idea of allowing blank nodes to be used as graph labels
>     to be controversial, but I think it's important for convenience
>     and to clarify the semantics in the face of possible dereference
>     operations.  I understand it presents some issues, including
>     SPARQL compatibility.  I propose we consider this AT RISK through
>     CR and see how those issues pan out.

It is a real shame that this proposal starts by being controversial when 
there may be much to agree in it.

"AT RISK" at this stage is signalling an open issue.


On the blank nodes,

http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-01-04#Issue__3a__should__2f_must_the_4th_slot_be_an_IRI__3f_

Can we start where there is most agreement which, as I understand it, is 
IRIs for labels?

It is then up to those who want bNode for labels to persuade everyone else.

Let's take a strawpoll.

	Andy
Received on Friday, 27 April 2012 18:54:57 UTC

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