Re: graph names denoting the graph (suggested change to Concepts)

On 06/05/2013 10:25 AM, Peter Patel-Schneider wrote:
> There was discussion in the telecon today about whether Concepts or
> Semantics said anything that forbade graphs names from denoting their
> graph.
>
> Semantics is clear that graph names might denote their graph, but
> there is nothing requiring this.
>
> Concepts is a bit vague on this point, saying that graph names "[do]
> not formally denote the graph".   This could be read as forbidding the
> denotation, although the next sentence does clarify the situation to
> some extent.  (It would be a bit preverse [I was watching "Dr.
> Strangelove" on the plane yesterday, so I'm leaving this typo in] to
> read the paragraph as saying that the graph name could denote anything
> except the graph, but there are lots of pre….s out there.)
>
> I suggest that the phrase be modified to "does not necessarily
> formally denote the graph".
>

That's not where the problem is that I'm worried about.   I'm worried 
about how Alice can send Bob a dataset in which the graph names denote 
their graph (and in which she is asserting the triples in the default 
graph).   How can Alice communicate this intent to Bob?    Doing it 
out-of-band is of course possible (she calls him on the phone), but 
that's very messy.   Can she do it in-band, such as by adding a magic 
triple to the default graph?     Unless that's licensed by the RDF 
Recommendations, I don't think so.   If the RDF Recommendations say all 
the triples/quads in a dataset are meaningless (as they currently do), 
then Bob isn't licensed to consider them as conveying Alice's intent.

        -- Sandro

Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2013 17:56:22 UTC