- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 10:57:09 -0400
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: RDF-WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Sat, 2012-04-14 at 20:35 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> On 13/04/12 11:33, Steve Harris wrote:
> >> Read that as rdf:aaa to avoid natural language meaning.
> > I don't get that, but…
>
> Natural language can be confusing.
>
> <u> rdf:label G .
>
> so is <u> labelled by G ?
> "<u> has a label of G"
> "G is a label for <u>"
>
> or is <u> labelling G ?
> "<u> is a label for G"
> "G has a label of <u>"
>
> (sometimes it does not matter -- e.g. sameValue).
>
> "labelled graphs" is more of the style "<u> is a label of G".
>
> All that is needed as the most basic building block is a neutral
> association of (<u>, G) and that within a dataset (<ui>, Gi) is
> functional from <ui> to Gi : given a label, find the associated graph.
With these looser semantics, I don't think it needs to be functional.
Rather, I think we can define it as labeling the associated graph and
each of its subgraphs.
There would be some kind of deep equivalence between these two datasets:
D1:
<u> { <a> <b> 1 }
<u> { <a> <b> 2 }
and
D2:
<u> { <a> <b> 1,2 }
The SPARQL semantics might written in terms of a normal form, where a
term is only used as a label once, but the other forms would be valid in
trig and in the RDF Semantics.
-- Sandro
Received on Sunday, 15 April 2012 14:57:18 UTC