- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 19:27:18 +0100
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 27/04/12 19:01, Sandro Hawke wrote: > On Fri, 2012-04-27 at 10:45 -0700, Jeremy Carroll wrote: >> On 4/27/2012 1:44 AM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote: >>> Remember that "named graph" is normative as it's part of a normative >>> section of the SPARQL recommendation. >> >> I just looked this up, and the definition seems to be in section 8 >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-rdf-sparql-query-20080115/#rdfDataset >> "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." >> >> This wording seems to me to suggest that G is a named graph if and only >> if there is a pair >> >> (u, G) >> >> in the dataset. > > Thanks for looking that up. I'm fine with that meaning for the term. > > Being pedantic, and using my terms from 6.3, the named graph is the RDF > Graph comprising the RDF Triples known to be contained by the graph > resource which has the given name. But I don't think boiling that down > to "named graph" is too misleading. > > -- Sandro > Strictly, the definition is: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-rdf-sparql-query-20080115/#sparqlDataset and definition is a named graph is the pair. A red thing has an attribute that it is read. A named thing has an attribute that it is named. So it could be a set of { name , triples} , of { name , set of triples } or with named attribute (name=u, graph=G) but we happen to write the name aspect and graph value aspect as a pair (u,G) G can have a life of it's own - and a different name elsewhere. (u1, G) and (u2, G) are different named graphs. Andy
Received on Friday, 27 April 2012 18:27:48 UTC