Re: Making progress on graphs

On 05/13/2012 02:15 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-05-13 at 13:36 -0400, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> The syntax part of Sandro's document appears mostly fine to me.
> Great.
>> However, there is quite a bit more to Sandro's document than there is to
>> Richard's proposal.  I'm not in favour of the semantics and
> As long as an RDF graph has truth conditions, I think a Dataset also has
> to have truth conditions.   Do you agree with that?
No, and I have so stated in the past.

> I'm trying to get the use cases/example fleshed out enough that we can
> see whether/how it breaks if we change/remove the dataset truth
> conditions.  I'm not there yet.
>>   folding sections.
> Yeah, I'll be curious to hear where people fall on this one.  It strikes
> me at the kind of thing that some people will really want, and some
> people will find silly and useless.   My own inclination is to err on
> the side of us doing it, so we can do it pretty well, rather than having
> everyone who thinks they need it re-inventing it.
I see this as reification, alts, etc., all over again.

>> Given that union dataset and merge dataset don't appear anywhere in the
>> document besides their definitions, I'm not sure what good they are.
> Yeah -- I have something else in mind to say about them, but if that
> doesn't get said, then I agree that text doesn't really belong.
>     - Sandro
>> peter


Received on Sunday, 13 May 2012 19:21:06 UTC