- From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 19:19:21 +0200
- To: "public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Hi all, after today's telecon, I read the proposal at [1]. First, it seems to be a "light" version of the Named Graph paper that Pat mentionned. "Light", because it specifies that "The interpretation of the IRI [paired to graphs], in the RDF Semantics sense, is left unspecified." It is all very well, but what happens when one wants to use those IRIs *in* the named graphs? As proposed in the 'Semantic Extension' section of [1]? Stating :G1 graph:imports :G2 does make some assumption about the meaning of :G1 and :G2 in the RDF Semantics! More generally, if we want to make graphs first class citizens of RDF, we need a mean to talk about them, hence we need IRIs whose interpretation in RDF Semantics is that graph. pa [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs/RDF-Datasets-Proposal
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2011 17:19:58 UTC