- From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:57:28 +0200
- To: "public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
I realize that a statement that I made: On 09/29/2011 04:42 PM, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote: > I know that SPARQL does not require that the default graph is *also* > present as a named graph (though it does not forbid it) could be argued against by the way SPARQL defines a dataset: > An RDF Dataset comprises one graph, the default graph, which does not > have a name, and zero or more named graphs, where each named graph is > identified by an IRI. I do not read "which does not have a name" as *forbidding* the default graph to be *also* a named graph, because the SPARQL rec also says: > The definition of RDF Dataset does not restrict the relationships of > named and default graphs. Information can be repeated in different > graphs; And indeed, I see more value in having a named "version" of the default graph in the dataset than in not having it. pa
Received on Thursday, 29 September 2011 14:58:03 UTC