- From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:19:33 +0200
- To: Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>
- CC: "public-rdf-comments@w3.org Comments" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Dear Jeremy, Thanks for your comment. We have raised an issue for tracking this [1]. We will get back to you on this. Best, Guus, on behalf of the RDF WG [1] https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/144 On 01-10-13 22:23, Jeremy J Carroll wrote: > > While preparing yet another attempt at text to suggest for my LC comment about using RDF to describe named graphs, I noted an error in the math in the LC documents. > > In concepts we read: > > [[ > An RDF dataset is a collection of RDF graphs, and comprises: > > • Exactly one default graph, being an RDF graph. The default graph does not have a name and may be empty. > • Zero or more named graphs. Each named graph is a pair consisting of an IRI or a blank node (the graph name), and an RDF graph. Graph names are unique within an RDF dataset. > ]] > > In semantics we read: > > [[ > An RDF dataset (see [RDF11-CONCEPTS]) is a finite set of RDF graphs each paired with an IRI or blank node called the graph name, > ]] > > > These are different. > > In particular. > > Concepts allows: > > > <eg:a> {} > > <eg:b> {} > > > And semantics does not, since the empty graph is not paired with a single IRI or blank node. > > === > > Sorry for noticing this very late. > > Jeremy J Carroll > Principal Architect > Syapse, Inc. > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2013 11:20:01 UTC