- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 18:30:55 +0100
- To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Changes made (v1.486) in accordance with this discussion on section 9.1/9.3 Andy -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: Example Errors (sections 8, 9, 10) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 12:15:19 -0400 From: Ryan Levering <RRLevering@yahoo.com> Reply-To: <RRLevering@yahoo.com> To: <andy.seaborne@hp.com> CC: <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org> >> 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 Yep, that would work fine; as long as there's some mention of the URI of that data, so the query makes more sense. Ryan
Received on Thursday, 8 September 2005 17:33:10 UTC