- From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 07:13:30 -0700
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
> From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> > > On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 15:35 -0700, Arnaud Le Hors wrote: > ... > > Finally, although I don't know what actually triggered Sandro's question > > about whether the file contains the complete graph or not, it seems to me > > that the {} proposal makes it look like what I'm seeing is the complete > > graph when it may not be. I know it's up to us to define that there is no > > such implication but I'd rather select a syntax that is more intuitive and > > less likely to mislead a casual reader/user who may not have read the spec > > carefully enough. > > I agree that {} makes it look more complete, but fwiw, I think what's > needed is a way to make it complete.... Maybe this should be a new > ISSUE. I can see reasons one might want both, but it's easy to go > from complete to incomplete with a subgraph relation, and I'm not sure > how to go from incomplete to complete. I guess with pointing to the > file you got it from, which seems much trickier. I think the on going discussion as made it clear that the question of conveying whether a representation of a graph is complete or not is an interesting question but that it is a different issue indeed. It seems that the question about complete graphs has eclipsed the other right now. -- Arnaud Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
Received on Monday, 3 October 2011 14:14:47 UTC