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

Re: life without dataset semantics

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:14:16 -0400
Message-ID: <5059D338.7040907@w3.org>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
CC: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>, "public-rdf-wg@w3.org Group WG" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 09/19/2012 10:06 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>
> On 09/19/2012 10:02 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> On 09/19/2012 09:48 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>> I'm not convinced that there is any need to restrict properties like 
>>> sendCorrectionsTo to datasets.
>>>
>>
>> How else could you define/document it?     In writing the property 
>> documentation, I find myself needing some way to talk about those 
>> intended triples (the ones containing the information that the 
>> corrections are about).  Without a dataset or some global relation 
>> underlying dataset semantics, I don't know how to do that.
>>
>>     -- Sandro
>
> You could just say that it is a relation between the name/location of 
> a graph and something else.  in a dataset it would be the named graph 
> in that dataset (or not).  Elsewhere it would refer to the graph at a 
> location.
>

But the documentation of the predicate would still need to talk about 
how its fitting inside a dataset, right?    In the design you're 
suggesting it would *also* have to talk about Web dereferencing, in the 
case where the named graph is absent.   I'd hate for every predicate 
about graphs to have to explain all this, each time.

        -- Sandro


> peter
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 14:14:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:51 GMT