Re: Attempt to provide semantics to Sandro's named graph design

On Apr 10, 2012, at 19:08 , Andy Seaborne wrote:

> 
> 
> On 10/04/12 15:35, Ivan Herman wrote:
>>> "Subgraphs or Graphs"
>>>> 
>>>> I don't think this is a local syntax issue. The parts of the
>>>> labelling may be in different datasets, which are then brought
>>>> together (actually, not possible by condition 3)
>>>> 
>> Yep, another reason to remove this.
>> 
>> But I am not absolutely sure what you are saying:-(
>> 
>>>> Within one TriG file, several<u>  {} blocks may make one graph
>>>> labelled<u>  overall -- that is a syntax issue.
>>>> 
>>>> ((I don't see why the merge of datasets isn't the merge of their
>>>> graphs with the same URI + the (IRI, graph) pairs for
>>>> non-overlapping IRIs.))
>>>> 
>> Well, that may be doable... but this seems to be one (maybe the only
>> real?) open issue at the moment in the WG.
>> 
>> Just thinking out loud: if (<u>,G) but<u>  is_not_  of type
>> rdf:Graph, ie, it is only labeling, then I could imagine a much more
>> lax attitude in terms of subgraph vs. graphs. However, if<u>
>> rdf:type rdf:Graph, ie, it is really a URI that denotes the graph,
>> then the situation may be different...
> 
> I'm OK with the idea that additional statements about <u> can, in effect, close the description by placing further restrictions on the relationship of <u> and G.
> 
> I haven't seen a reason to make the default be complete labelling - additional triples can't undo the base semantics.
> 
> e.g. Lee's example or Arnaud's "it depends" or simply concatenating two N-Quads or TriG files are reasonable UCs to me.

Hm. It is not clear at this moment how one would translate that into semantics. Maybe tomorrow my mind will be more fresh:-)

ivan

> 
> 	Andy
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf