W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > October 2011

Re: why I don't like named graph IRIs in the DATASET proposal

From: Ian Davis <ian.davis@talis.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 11:06:47 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAiX05GSJo8XxiybJxOEVE95z_dvM4PPg9HQ6qF=ziLn1a8cyg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>, "public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:09 UTC