- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:58:38 -0400
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 08/16/2012 02:18 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>
> On 08/16/2012 02:12 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>
> [...]
>> As we tried to make clear in the document: the 'essence' of the
>> proposal is what you just said and what we tried to put there, ie,
>> that "the semantics of an RDF dataset is just the semantics of its
>> default graph" (by default). If the formal, mathematics part is wrong
>> and if it would lead to too much complications to to get it right
>> then, by all means, I am *personally* happy to just nuke it.
>>> Right, the point is the stuff in 3.1. How that may be expressed is
>>> currently eluding me, but Peter you can help here. We need you for
>>> that.
>> The semantics of a dataset is that of the default graph PLUS the
>> fixing of the denotations of the graph names. That second part is
>> important.
>>
>> Pat
>>
>>
> I don't see what is important in this second part at all. Does it
> have any interesting consequences, for example?
Perhaps Pat understand what you're asking and can answer in a way that
clears this up. For my part, well, it seems like these two datasets
are different:
d1: <g> { <a> <b> 1 }
d2: <g> { <a> <b> 2 }
Presumably there are times when I might store/transmit d1, and it would
break things if instead I stored/transmitted d2. So a difference, even
if it's not in the default graph, can still make a difference. Thus
the name-graph pairs in a dataset do have *some* semantics.
-- Sandro
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2012 19:58:51 UTC