- From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 23:32:42 +0100
- To: John Walker <john.walker@semaku.com>
- Cc: Hydra <public-hydra@w3.org>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
>> Yeah; but the problem remains that, strictly speaking >> <g> rdfg:subGraphOf <>. >> and >> <a> <b> <c> <g>. >> are talking about different <g>s, according to the RDF 1.1 spec. > > The way I read it, would be more correct to say "could be talking about > different <g>s". +1 > >> So we're still looking for a mechanism to say: >> when I name a graph <g>, and use it in subject/object position, >> I really mean the same thing. > > Isn't Hydra CG in a position to make such a formal restriction for a certain > context (publishing Linked Data on the web)? Maybe, but I'm afraid each document will have to be explicit about its interpretation of graphs. There's no way to know for machines otherwise. Best, Ruben
Received on Tuesday, 10 November 2015 22:33:14 UTC