- From: Alex Hall <alexhall@revelytix.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 23:30:55 -0400
- To: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 03:31:23 UTC
Just trying to get a handle on people's expectations around named graphs as g-snaps vs. g-boxes as it relates to graph equality (and inequality). Given the two notional TriG/Qurtle fragments which we would like to combine: file-1.trig: :G1 { :a :b :c } . :G2 { :d :e :f } . file-2.trig: :G1 { :a :b :d } . :G3 { :d :e :f } . My impression so far is that some people want to treat named graphs as g-snaps, and some as g-boxes. Suppose for a second that we treat them as naming g-snaps. Without expressing an opinion one way or another, I ask: 1. Is the fact that G1 is mapped to two different g-snaps an inconsistency? 2. From the fact that G2 and G3 are mapped to the same g-snap, can we conclude that G2 and G3 are in fact the same resource? Regards, Alex
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 03:31:23 UTC