- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 16:53:54 +0200
- To: "'RDF Working Group'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Friday, August 09, 2013 4:17 PM, Ivan Herman wrote: > On Aug 9, 2013, at 11:43 , Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote: >> On Friday, August 09, 2013 11:24 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: >>> We had a long discussion some times ago and we concluded that graphs in >>> a dataset share bnodes. As a consequence, I believe Gavin's statement >>> seems to be the proper conclusion... >> >> Yes, the graphs share bnodes but I'm not sure how that relates to the graph >> names. So you could as well argue that there are two sets of blank node >> identifiers and that in the examples below the mappings are >> >> Example 1: _:y -> _:x (nodes) | _:y -> _:x (graphs) >> Example 2: _:y -> _:y (nodes) | _:y -> _:x (graphs) >> >> Or do I miss something? As far as I understand it, there's no relationship >> between a blank node identifier used as graph name and a blank node >> identifier used as node (you could say they are in different scopes) from >> which I conclude that the same bnode id mappings can be mapped differently. >> > > Yes, we could do that. But that seems to be confusing, at least to me. Yes, it's confusing. But I think it is a consequence of the decision to not define any dataset semantics. Blank nodes used as graph names do not denote the graph. > Is there a use case for the separation of the different scopes? Well, ask the people who voted against letting bnodes denote the graph. > It > looks way more obvious to me to consider a bnode as a label and a bnode > in one of the graphs as being identical... Fully agreed, but I think under the current semantics they are not. Actually the same is true for IRIs but since their scope is global the difference doesn't matter. -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Friday, 9 August 2013 14:54:24 UTC