- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 17:09:42 -0600
- To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
In "major technical: underspecified errors" http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2006Jan/0066.html we find... > Also in this section, > there is no mention of any syntax or runtime checks that an IRI > actually identifies a graph. Possibly the interpretation of an IRI that > does not identify a graph is that the graph is empty. However, this would > be a disservice to the user since it would not alert the user to > a typo in spelling a graph IRI. It would be better to specify an error. > Presumably the list of acceptable IRIs would be implementation-defined. I was going to say that this is covered by this text: [[ The FROM NAMED syntax suggests that the IRI identifies the corresponding graph, but actually the relationship between a URI and a graph in an RDF dataset is indirect. the IRI identifies a resource, and the resource is represented by a graph (or, more precisely: by a document that serializes a graph). For further details see [WEBARCH]. ]] but now I'm not so sure. In 9 Specifying RDF Datasets... [[ The dataset resulting from a number of FROM and FROM NAMED clauses is: * a default graph consisting of the merge of the graphs referred to in the FROM clauses * a set of (IRI, graph) pairs, one from each FROM NAMED clause. ]] we refer to "the graphs referred to in the FROM clauses". I wonder if that's coherent... hmm... -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 12 January 2006 23:09:48 UTC