- From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 16:58:55 +0100
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
You can interpret dataset in whatever way you like. But your neighbour can too, so there is little chance your interpretations will be compatible in any way, unless you have out-of-band agreement to use compatible interpretation. If you want, the graph name denotes a graph, and this: <> denotes a WebSource, but if you want, a graph name denotes the universe and <> denotes a fish. The second would be considered, probably, bad practice, but RDF 1.1 does not make recommendations in terms of best practices. AZ Le 11/12/2013 16:42, Markus Lanthaler a écrit : > On Saturday, December 07, 2013 5:02 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote: > [...] >> I'd propose it's the dataset (<>) that's the WebSource, not /bob that's >> the WebSource. Pat can correct me, but my sense is that nothing we say >> about the thing denoted by the graph name can affect what we're saying >> about the associated graph or how they are connected. To say >> something >> about how the graph name's denotation and the associated graph are >> related, we have to say something about the dataset itself. > > Pat, is that true? If so, why? > > > -- > Markus Lanthaler > @markuslanthaler > > > > -- Antoine Zimmermann ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne 158 cours Fauriel 42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2 France Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03 Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66 http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2013 15:59:21 UTC