- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 13:14:47 +0200
- To: "'RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Wednesday, June 05, 2013 7:56 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote: > 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. Yes, this is something which currently just doesn't make any sense to me. Why are triples that happen to be in a graph in a dataset any different from triples in just a graph? Why can't we say that every RDF graph is implicitly in a dataset? Dataset syntaxes allow to serialize a default graph + named graphs whereas graph syntaxes only allow the default graph to be serialized? -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2013 11:15:21 UTC