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

Re: [All] Proposal: RDF Graph Identification

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:58:38 -0400
Message-ID: <502D50EE.8080300@w3.org>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:06 UTC