- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 09:30:26 +0000
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 08/03/11 14:30, Ivan Herman wrote: > I am not sure that we have to define an interpretation for a whole > dataset, actually. Going one step forward (to Richard) I am not that > we have to define the concept of a dataset at that level (which is of > course useful for SPARQL). I would expect to define only a (id,G) > tuple in some sense; what is the reason of going beyond that? > > Ivan The definition of RDF Dataset in SPARQL 1.0 spec are words members of DAWG could agree on. All that's defined in SPARQL is that a dataset is a set of one graph and some (<u>,G) pairs. G is a graph, a set of triples. It does not say what the relationship of <u> and G is. The agreement is the words, nothing more, and it's a compromise. Andy
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2011 09:31:03 UTC