Re: Bound and Unbound Datasets

    > Well, the (only?) reason we don't just say as a blanket rule
    > that any graph label must denote the graph it labels, is
    > because some people were very vocal about wanting to use IRIs
    > which denoted something else to be used as graph labels. So I
    > thought this was a clear use case that it would be helpful if
    > we could allow, and this tweak does allow it.

As was pointed out at the time and elsewhere this is because the graph
label is being overloaded. It is being used both as a mechanism for
arbitrariy partitioning datasets and for being able to talk about
statements. These uses are incompatible. That both of these are widely
acknowledged to be useful and desireable things to do means it's a
problem that you can't do both in the same dataset. We don't even
have a way to know how a particular dataset is using these labels to
say how we should understand them.

Introducing blank nodes as labels just exposes the problem more
clearly because they aren't as useful for the partitioning case.

The only way that I can see to fix this is to allow partition labels
at the top level (useful because they give a natural blank node label
scope boundary) and then allow labelled graphs where the labels do
denote inside each partition.

But then we need quints...

-w