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

Re: why I don't like default graphs in the DATASET proposal

From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:57:28 +0200
Message-ID: <4E848758.3080403@liris.cnrs.fr>
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.

Received on Thursday, 29 September 2011 14:58:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:01 UTC