- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 10:01:33 -0400
- To: Souripriya Das <SOURIPRIYA.DAS@oracle.com>
- CC: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2012 14:02:09 UTC
My regrets as well for today. Of the proposals in the agenda: *PROPOSED: Implementations that parse and store information from TriG documents MAY turn the TriG default graph into a named graph with a name chosen in an implementation-dependent way. * I guess I'm neutral on this. This is pretty much what Anzo does, but it seems pretty unhelpful for a specification to say this from an interoperability standpoint./ *PROPOSED: The WG suggests it's a good practice to put metadata about a TriG document in the document's default graph. * I don't agree with this (see other recent thread), but I won't object to it. *PROPOSED: This Working Group will not provide a Formal Semantics for RDF Datasets or for our Dataset Syntax (eg trig). In the future, the WG will decide whether to include something simple (relevant to datasets) in the RDF 1.1 Semantics, such as [ <N, G> name-entails <N', G'> just when N=N' and G entails G'. ] and the WG may publish some information about dataset semantics in WG NOTES. * I'm ok with this. Lee On 10/3/2012 9:54 AM, Souripriya Das wrote: > Regrets for today's meeting (busy at Oracle Open World this morning). -- Souri. > >
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2012 14:02:09 UTC