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

On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 16:55 +0200, Ivan Herman wrote:
> 
> Well... fine with me. But what I am saying is that, from a Semantics
> point of view, a label behaves pretty much the same way as a term
> typed rdf:Graph. At least by the level of semantics which is on that
> page.

Yes.    rdf:Graph doesn't add to the expressive power; it's just an
important convenience feature.

It lets us use cc:license (and things like that) instead of defining a
new predicate, licenceOfAssociatedGraph.   That is:

  { ?x a rdf:Graph;
       cc:license <L> }   

could instead be written as:

  { ?x eg:licenseOfAssociatedGraph <L> }

But...  we could explore this a bit more.  Maybe it would be okay to
just use cc:license without the rdf:Graph declaration.

     -- Sandro

Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2012 15:25:50 UTC