- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 17:37:04 +0100
- To: <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 4:59 PM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote: > 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. That's clear. What I wanted to know is why it *would* work if the "dataset" is marked as WebSource (of course if you share knowledge about WebSource) but not if the graph name is marked as such (according to Sandro). > 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 16:37:51 UTC