Re: [All] Proposal: RDF Graph Identification

On 08/16/2012 05:17 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> On Aug 16, 2012, at 1:18 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> On 08/16/2012 02:12 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> [...]
>>> As we tried to make clear in the document: the 'essence' of the proposal is what you just said and what we tried to put there, ie, that "the semantics of an RDF dataset is just the semantics of its default graph" (by default). If the formal, mathematics part is wrong and if it would lead to too much complications to to get it right then, by all means, I am *personally* happy to just nuke it.
>>>> Right, the point is the stuff in 3.1.  How that may be expressed is currently eluding me, but Peter you can help here.  We need you for that.
>>> The semantics of a dataset is that of the default graph PLUS the fixing of the denotations of the graph names. That second part is important.
>>> Pat
>> I don't see what is important in this second part at all.  Does it have any interesting consequences, for example?
> Ir means that the URI can be used to refer to the graph externally to the dataset. AFAIK, this is the only proposal on the table for how one can attach a URI to a graph as the name of that graph (Ie constrain interpretations so that they all have the URI denoting the graph.) So any kind of "metadata" about RDF graphs expresed in RDF needs this, or soemthing with equal semantic weight.
> Pat

How does the semantics enable this, over and above the syntax?  For example, 
we could say that the intended meaning of an RDF dataset is that the name 
refers to the graph without doing anything in the semantics.


Received on Thursday, 16 August 2012 21:46:28 UTC