- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 23:37:03 -0400
- To: Alex Hall <alexhall@revelytix.com>
- CC: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 4/6/2011 11:30 PM, Alex Hall wrote:
> 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?
I'm guessing that because of the OWA that the answer to both is "no",
though I'm not really sure?
Lee
>
> Regards,
> Alex
>
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 03:37:37 UTC