- From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2013 17:33:08 +0100
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 09/08/13 15:53, Markus Lanthaler wrote: > 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. I don't see that matters - this is whether one dataset is isomorphic to another. It is a structural relationship and not about denotation. Andy > > >> 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 16:33:36 UTC