- From: David Wood <dpw@talis.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 08:56:53 -0400
- To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Cc: Alex Hall <alexhall@revelytix.com>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Apr 6, 2011, at 23:37, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net> wrote: > 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? I certainly hope that the answer to both is 'no'. Regards, Dave > > Lee > >> >> Regards, >> Alex >> >
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 12:57:23 UTC