On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: > > But every time you use the name to refer to the graph, you are making an > inference. And the way we have set things up with graph labels (see above) > it is an *invalid* inference. So forget having RDF 'metadata' using graph > labels/names: that is literally impossible, with the current conventions > about the fourth IRI in a quad store. There is NO WAY to refer to a graph in > RDF, with the current semantics. If we want to do this, we have to change > the semantics rules so that the graph label denotes the graph it labels. > This is trivial to do, of course, and to me it seems like a no-brainer, but > apparently the WG does not agree. Which is fine, but then we all have to > live with the consequences. > Can I not refer to a graph indirectly with a blank node? [ rdf:type rdf:Graph ; rdf:graphName "http://example.com/mygraph" ] -- Ian Davis, Chief Technology Officer, Talis Group Ltd. http://www.talis.com/ | Registered in England and Wales as 5382297
Received on Friday, 7 October 2011 10:07:18 UTC