W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > February 2004

Re: Named graphs

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:35:28 +0000
Message-ID: <402BC770.9020202@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Benja Fallenstein <b.fallenstein@gmx.de>, rdf-i <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>


Is the N3 semantics of a bnode shared between two formulae clear?

One of the motivations to allow bnodes as graph names was for N3 compatibility.

Jeremy



Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> 
> It will take some time to reply to this one ....
> 
> It is intentional that you can include a bnode in multiple graphs in the 
> same graphset and it is intended that that has file scope. However that 
> is not fully thought through yet. It might turn out to be wrong as we 
> proceed with the next stage of the work.
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Benja Fallenstein wrote:
> 
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Jeremy,
>>
>> I'm at a bit of a loss as to how graph naming should be represented in
>> an actual application that syndicates TriX files from multiple places.
>> What if two TriX graphsets describe the same graph, but inconsistently
>> (i.e., different sets of triples)?
>>
>> It seems necessary to be able to not only say, "B said that C," but
>> also, "A said that B said that C."
>>
>> Also, I'm confused by your use of bnodes. Your graph naming algorithm
>> requires that one bnode can be shared by different graphs in the same
>> graphset. That's quite a deviation from the RDF abstract syntax, and
>> would require significant changes to implementations, I think. I would
>> be more comfortable if you would only use URIs for graphs, and specified
>> that <id>foo</id> in one graph in a set is not the same as <id>foo</id>
>> in another.
>>
>> - - Benja
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>>
>> iD8DBQFAK2zDUvR5J6wSKPMRArAEAJ4tj3+LBEUG87mi3pwWQKH55SOqEACeN0YR
>> CojVGshQIsoFIuOAY71+Jt0=
>> =LiBr
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2004 13:38:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:58 UTC