- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 13:39:04 +0100
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 13 Sep 2012, at 13:12, Andy Seaborne wrote: > We would have to be careful to explain why we then don't have datasets-inside-datasets and "named datasets". It's a somewhat arbitrary restriction in the abstract syntax that makes implementations simpler while still allowing the use cases we care most about to be addressed. > It's not a block to the idea but keeping them separate does make it clearer where the boundary is. I think that keeping them separate would make the Semantics document more complicated. The Semantics document is complicated enough as it is. I think making it more complicated to account for a syntactic restriction is not a good idea. If writing a semantics that is more general than necessary for the abstract syntax turns out to be simpler, then readers are better served by the simpler thing, IMO. A related case here is literals-as-subjects, which is a well-motivated restriction that I never would want to remove, but I'd prefer if the Semantics document would use a generalized notion of RDF graphs that doesn't have the restriction, because that would remove probably a page of pointless and hard-to-understand trickery that is needed to work around the restriction. At least I personally found that a barrier to understanding the document. Best, Richard
Received on Thursday, 13 September 2012 12:39:32 UTC