- From: Fabio Vitali <fabio.vitali@unibo.it>
- Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2021 09:49:24 +0000
- To: James Anderson <anderson.james.1955@gmail.com>
- CC: "public-rdf-star@w3.org" <public-rdf-star@w3.org>
Dear James, >>> yes, absent a definition for dataset construction, there is no way to interpret the chronology example. >>> post-3.8, why does that matter? >> >> So let me clarify this: 3.8 suggests we use a ASK WHERE query to verify the truth value of a graph. Thus I add a boolean statement to the example, say: > > more importantly and without regard to the specific consequences as to interpretation, 3.8 refers to a situation which demonstrates that, whichever question one asks, if one defines how to merge graphs, it is possible to answer ones questions. > which of 3.1 -- 3.7 one chooses is (modulo issues of completeness and correctness) immaterial. > sparlq chooses one. Allow me to rephrase. What you are saying is that, regardless of the semantics of named graphs (3.1 <-> 3.7) one may think they have chosen for their application, if they are using sparql at all they will end up with 3.8 anyway, because the sparql part will use it regardless of opinions and wishes. That is very true and insightful. And useful. Thank you for this Fabio > > best regards, from berlin,
Received on Saturday, 18 September 2021 09:50:22 UTC