- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 15:51:03 +0100
- To: RRLevering@yahoo.com
- CC: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Ryan Levering wrote: > > >> > >> In section 9.3, the default graph should actually be a named graph with > >> the uri http://example.org/dft.ttl. > >> > >> In section 9.1, the default graph should actually be a named graph with > >> the uri http://example.org/foaf/aliceFoaf. > > > Could you say more here? Reading a graph from a location does not > > automatically give it a name. That woudl eb FROM NAMED. This is > significant > > for FROM because there can be several FROM clauses and the default > graph will > > be formed using all these (e.g. the RDF merge) > > > FROM <graph1> > > FROM <graph2> > > > In the example in section 9.3, the default graph is formed given the > single > > IRI <http://example.org/dft.ttl> but that isn't also a naming operation. > > > For 9.1 and 9.3, I could add a note to say that the default graph is > read from > > these locations but not named (that would be done if it were FROM > NAMED). > > My apologies on my lack of clarity. The query is fine in both cases, > but in the data listing, the header on the default graphs is "# Default > graph", which isn't nearly as clear as, for instance 9.3: "# Named > graph: http://example.org/dft.ttl" which is what the query actually uses > for it's default dataset. The point of FROM is that you're using a > named graph to specify a default/background graph, so it would be > clearer to actually have a name on that graph listing. > > Ryan Levering > OK - I see now. Would an editorial change like: ---- # Default graph (stored at http://example.org/foaf/aliceFoaf) @prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> . _:a foaf:name "Alice" . _:a foaf:mbox <mailto:alice@work.example> . ---- adding something to the comment in the data and retaining the point it is the default graph and not using the term "naming" make it clear? Andy
Received on Thursday, 8 September 2005 14:55:43 UTC