- From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 10:36:56 +0200
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Le 16/05/2012 06:43, Pat Hayes a écrit : > > [skip] >> >> I'm not sure they are contradictory. Antoine's proposal and mine >> are both flexible enough to cover current practice. > > Wow. Really? They seeem to me to have almost nothing in common. I agree they are quite different but they converge on some things, e.g., the default graph has the same meaning in both approaches. > You > give names to graphs, Antoine's doesn't. Antoine's requires allowing > IRIs to mean different things in different contexts, your's doesn't. Id doesn't *require*, it just *allows*. So it makes possible for an implementation to define extensions that constrain the interpretations to denote the same thing, if required. > Semantically they are completely different. I don't see how one can > get true graph naming in Antoine's framework, nor how yours can > provide any notion of context. Getting true graph naming in my framework would be possible by adding just one additional condition on interpretation, but I deliberately avoided putting this constrain, to accomodate for the use cases when graph IRI denote primary topic, for instance. > [skip] Best, -- Antoine Zimmermann ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne 158 cours Fauriel 42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2 France Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03 Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66 http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2012 08:37:25 UTC