RE: multiple-graph example in the Primner

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