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

On Aug 10, 2013, at 8:33 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:

> 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)?

Because the mapping function is part of the *syntax*. Redefining or extending the semantics is one thing, but having a language which can make assertions which alter its actual syntax is something else altogether. I don't want us to go there. 


PS does this make sense to you? "The second letter of the seventh wurd in this sentence is really an "o"."

> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler

IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile

Received on Sunday, 11 August 2013 20:18:13 UTC