- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 07:26:55 -0400
- To: public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org
Yes, I was being somewhere between much too sloppy and just plain wrong. My apologies. Instead, as Niklas said in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2024Jul/0023.html, named graphs are pairs of a name and an RDF graph. Further, the graph in a named graph is still an RDF graph and doesn't loose any meaning just because it is a component of something else. Instead of saying that a named graph entails another, which is not defined in RDF, one can instead say that the RDF graph in a named graph entails the RDF graph in some other named graph. peter On 7/1/24 16:31, Antoine Zimmermann wrote: > Le 01/07/2024 à 21:42, Peter F. Patel-Schneider a écrit : >> On 7/1/24 15:03, Thomas Lörtsch wrote: > [...] >> >> RDF named graphs do indeed have semantics - they are RDF graphs and thus >> have all their semantics. > > I did not follow the conversation on this but I cannot let you say this. RDF > named graphs are not RDF graphs, period. > > RDF named graphs are pairs, and RDF graphs are sets of triples. > > It is incredible that you make such a sloppy statement (in fact, a plain false > statement) when at the same time you request an absolute perfect definition of > what the lexical-to-value mapping must be when it comes to rdf:JSON. > > Moreover, if RDF named graphs have semantics, it is only the semantics that > one wants to assign to them. Someone else may assign different semantics and > that's not interoperable. This is why the RDF 1.1 Working Group could not > agree on the semantics of RDF datasets. Please check again the note that I > wrote about Semantics of RDF Datasets [1]. > > > --AZ > > [1] RDF 1.1: On Semantics of RDF Datasets. W3C Working Group Note 25 February > 2014. https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-datasets/
Received on Friday, 5 July 2024 11:27:02 UTC