- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 14:30:28 +0000
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 7 Mar 2011, at 13:03, Nathan wrote: > 'There's a very critical detail here, the need to talk about a named-g-box, and the need to talk about a a distinct set of triples' > > does that help? No, because I still can't think of an example of an RDF statement about a g-something, where interpreting the g-something the one way works and interpreting it the other way doesn't. > Likewise, hopefully the distinction we be clear at some point, or it'll be deduced that there is no distinction (and if there is no distinction, then no need to have all of g-box, g-snap & g-text as concepts, only the final two). There is obviously a distinction between g-box and g-snap, you could potentially add a triple to a g-box and still have the same g-box, but if you add a triple to a g-snap then by definition you have a different g-snap. One is mutable, the other is defined by its value and hence its value cannot change. So I understand why we need to distinguish them for SPARQL UPDATE. I don't understand however why the distinction supposedly matters when making statements about a g-box or g-snap. How about this: Let's assume I have a g-box that for whatever reason has been “sealed” and made immutable. Is there any RDF statement that you'd possibly like to make about this immutable g-box that you wouldn't want to make about the g-snap sealed therein, or vice versa? If it takes you more than a minute to come up with something, then I'm no longer prepared to believe that the distinction matters ;-) Richard
Received on Monday, 7 March 2011 14:54:11 UTC