- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 09:18:18 +0200
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, "nathan@webr3.org" <nathan@webr3.org>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
On 29 May 2012, at 03:15, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 05/28/2012 01:41 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: >> Hi Nathan, >> >> On 28 May 2012, at 17:02, Nathan wrote: >>> Generally we see an RDF Graph as a Set of Statements, and the meaning of that is the conjunction of all the Statements in the Graph; and where each Graph entails its powerset. >> Yes. >> >>> However, it seems like there is an unwritten assumption in the community, that the meaning of a Node within a Graph is the conjunction of all the statements made where that node is in the subject or object position. >> Nodes in an RDF graph don't have meaning. > > I beg to differ! To avoid this kind of ping-pong and give a name to a useful concept, how about we name the rawest level? Plain triple / graph data structure, minimal additional assumptions. "RDF-Zero". Dan > peter >
Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2012 07:19:08 UTC