- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:14:16 -0400
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- CC: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>, "public-rdf-wg@w3.org Group WG" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 09/19/2012 10:06 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > On 09/19/2012 10:02 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote: >> On 09/19/2012 09:48 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >>> I'm not convinced that there is any need to restrict properties like >>> sendCorrectionsTo to datasets. >>> >> >> How else could you define/document it? In writing the property >> documentation, I find myself needing some way to talk about those >> intended triples (the ones containing the information that the >> corrections are about). Without a dataset or some global relation >> underlying dataset semantics, I don't know how to do that. >> >> -- Sandro > > You could just say that it is a relation between the name/location of > a graph and something else. in a dataset it would be the named graph > in that dataset (or not). Elsewhere it would refer to the graph at a > location. > But the documentation of the predicate would still need to talk about how its fitting inside a dataset, right? In the design you're suggesting it would *also* have to talk about Web dereferencing, in the case where the named graph is absent. I'd hate for every predicate about graphs to have to explain all this, each time. -- Sandro > peter > >
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 14:14:24 UTC