Re: New Proposal (6.1) for GRAPHS

On Apr 4, 2012, at 03:25, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> On 03/04/12 01:27, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>>> There's some misunderstanding here, yes.   Maybe you can talk through
>>>> >  >  some particular thing you imagine doing, involving merging and TriG, and
>>>> >  >  I'll be able to pick it up.   From what you've written, I'm confused.
>>>> >  >
>>>> >  >  Maybe I can clarifying by translating this TriG document:
>>>> >  >
>>>> >  >            <u1>    {<a>    <b>    <c>   }
>>>> >  >
>>>> >  >  into this English declaration:
>>>> >  >
>>>> >  >            The URI 'u1' denotes something, and that thing has exactly one
>>>> >  >            associated RDF Graph.   That associated RDF graph consists of
>>>> >  >            one RDF triple, which we can write in turtle as "<a>   <b>   <c>".
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >  Clearer, but not what I would have expected.
>>> >
>>> >  Why "exactly one associated RDF Graph"?
>> My intuition is that there are important thing you can't do if you allow
>> more than one graph to be associated with the named object, but I
>> haven't really explored that because SPARQL datasets clearly allow only
>> one GRAPH for a given name, so I figured we'd stick with that.  That's
>> why I said hasGraph was a functional property.
> 
> A query executes at some (idealized) point in time, and a query closes the world to execute (or they'd never complete!).   An RDF Dataset is the local concept for the data being queried - there's no statement about anything outside the local context made, or needed for SPARQL.

+1.  It is worth noting that the world closes at a point in time in exactly the same way when a REST resource is poked and emits a representation.

Regards,
Dave



> 
> 	Andy
> 

Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:22:10 UTC