# Re: Sandro's proposal VS RDF Datasets

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 11:38:55 -0400
To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1335973135.27977.134.camel@waldron>
```On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 16:59 +0200, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
> My interpretation is that when one writes:
>
>      :g {
>           :c  rdfs:subClassOf  :d .
>           :x  rdf:type  :c .
>      }
>
> it's a statement that the two triples are true "according to :g" (or
> in
> "context" :g if you prefer this word, or in "graph labelled :g") and
> from this follows that "in graph :g" the triple ":x  rdf:type  :d ."
> is
> true,

I don't think it follows, since I don't think there is any sense to the
idea of triples being "true in a graph".

Is triple (:a :b :c) true in the graph {:a :b :c; :d :e} ?    The
question seems malformed to me.

I see some nearby concepts that do make sense to me:

Is triple (:a :b :c) in the graph {:a :b :c; :d :e} ?   (This is the
normal notion of something being an element in a set.)

Is triple (:a :b :c) in the g-box which currently contains
{:a :b :c; :d :e}?   (This is the notion I think is most useful for
datasets, and what my proposals are using these days.)

Is triple (:a :b :c) true of some situation where {:a :b :c; :d :e}
is true?   (This makes some sense, but I don't understand the technical
details.)

Of course, the answer is "yes" in each of these cases, but what about
the triple (:a :b: :f)?   For that, in case one, the answer is No.  In
cases two and three, it depends on information we don't have here.

-- Sandro
```
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2012 15:39:14 UTC

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