W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > August 2013

RE: RDF-ISSUE-140 (dataset-comparison): RDF Dataset Comparison (Ivan Herman) [RDF Concepts]

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 17:33:19 +0200
To: "'RDF Working Group'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00ef01ce95de$f1aba780$d502f680$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Saturday, August 10, 2013 4:56 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> On Aug 9, 2013, at 2:43 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> > 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)
> 
> That is not my understanding. I guess this has not been formally
> decided, but your interpretation is so bizarre that I never even
> considered it before. For example, Sandro's use case of the default
> graph as metadata would not be possible with this interpretation.

Why not? Sandro's use case changes the semantics (to something way more
intuitive), why can't it change the mapping function at the same time (to be
more intuitive as well)?


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Saturday, 10 August 2013 15:33:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:31 UTC