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

Re: Dataset Syntax - checking for consensus

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 10:38:40 -0400
Message-ID: <50631370.2050808@openlinksw.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 9/26/12 10:14 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> On 09/26/2012 09:42 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> On 9/25/12 10:48 PM, Gavin Carothers wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
>>>>> PROPOSED: Our dataset syntax will allow for the expression of 
>>>>> empty named graphs, whatever their semantics might be (to be 
>>>>> decided). The syntax is an empty curly-braces expression, as in 
>>>>> "<g> { }".
>>>> +1. However, note that there is only one empty graph: it is unique.
>>> Yes! There is only one empty graph. +1 Pat, now my brain hurts less.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> +1
>>
>
> It seems to me that when people say "named graph" they are often (very 
> nearly always) referring to a g-box not a g-snap. 

Yes.

> When I use the term "named graph", I am intentionally being ambiguous. 
> So, in fact there are lots distinct empty "named graphs", since they 
> are empty g-snap containers.

Should have qualified my +1 as being about the "it is unique." part of 
the sentence i.e., lots of unique empty graphs <g> {}, <h> {}, <i> {} 
... :-)

>
>        -- Sandro
>
>
>
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen







Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2012 14:39:07 GMT

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