- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 11:38:55 -0400
- To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 16:59 +0200, Antoine Zimmermann wrote: > My interpretation is that when one writes: > > :g { > :c rdfs:subClassOf :d . > :x rdf:type :c . > } > > it's a statement that the two triples are true "according to :g" (or > in > "context" :g if you prefer this word, or in "graph labelled :g") and > from this follows that "in graph :g" the triple ":x rdf:type :d ." > is > true, I don't think it follows, since I don't think there is any sense to the idea of triples being "true in a graph". Is triple (:a :b :c) true in the graph {:a :b :c; :d :e} ? The question seems malformed to me. I see some nearby concepts that do make sense to me: Is triple (:a :b :c) in the graph {:a :b :c; :d :e} ? (This is the normal notion of something being an element in a set.) Is triple (:a :b :c) in the g-box which currently contains {:a :b :c; :d :e}? (This is the notion I think is most useful for datasets, and what my proposals are using these days.) Is triple (:a :b :c) true of some situation where {:a :b :c; :d :e} is true? (This makes some sense, but I don't understand the technical details.) Of course, the answer is "yes" in each of these cases, but what about the triple (:a :b: :f)? For that, in case one, the answer is No. In cases two and three, it depends on information we don't have here. -- Sandro
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2012 15:39:14 UTC