Re: multiple-graph example in the Primner

On 12/7/13 1:27 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> >My position:
>> >- There needs to be at least one example triple in the Primer in which a graph name is being used. Dropping this completely is for the editors a no-go.
> Including such an example is a no-go for me. I will formally object (or protest, or register a dissent, I am not sure of the exact W3C process involved here) if the WG publishes any document which implies that such usage is in any way supported by the RDF 1.1 specifications. That is*exactly*  the semantic stumbling-point at which we were unable to provide any semantics for datasets. RDF 1.1 does NOT imply in any way that the use of a graph-name in an RDF triple can or should be understood to refer to the graph. On the contrary, it explicitly denies the validity of such an assumption.
>
+1

RDF is about structured data representation using triples. It isn't 
about quads (that's a database/store application implementation detail). 
RDF isn't a spec for writing RDF databases/stores, its about the 
structured data processed by these kinds of applications.

We can't introduce examples that ultimately amount to RDF spec 
contradictions and eternal confusions. The primer's fundamental goal is 
to be as clear as possible about what RDF is all about. It cannot become 
the latest RDF confusion vector for its readers.

-- 

Regards,

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