- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 13:12:35 +0100
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 13/09/12 04:14, Pat Hayes wrote: > > On Sep 12, 2012, at 4:12 PM, RDF Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > >> RDF-ISSUE-98 (graph-dataset-semantics-unified): Should the semantics of RDF graphs and the semantics of RDF datasets be combined into one unified semantics? [RDF Semantics] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/98 >> >> Raised by: Antoine Zimmermann >> On product: RDF Semantics >> >> So far, all the proposals for a semantics of datasets are simply referring to the semantics of RDF but do not actually modify it. Do we want one notion of interpretation that defines the truth of RDF triples, RDF graphs and RDF datasets all together in a unified way? >> > > I would suggest that if we can treat a dataset with a single default graph as being just like a graph, then (1) we in effect will already have this, provided that (2) obviously, the interpretation of such a graph-like datset should be exactly like the interpretation of a graph. So, in response: Yes, and it should come for free. We would have to be careful to explain why we then don't have datasets-inside-datasets and "named datasets". It's not a block to the idea but keeping them separate does make it clearer where the boundary is. Andy > > Pat > >> >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 > 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office > Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax > FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile > phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes > > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 13 September 2012 12:13:09 UTC