RE: minimal dataset semantics

On Friday, June 07, 2013 5:29 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> Getting procedural for a moment:  I don't want to re-open [1] more than
> a tiny crack, but if I'm right (and Pat seems to agree [2]) then [1] was
> based on the mistaken idea that optional additional dataset semantics
> could be provided by defining vocabulary terms.  I now believe that's
> only true if datasets have this minimal semantic condition (that the
> meaning of a dataset is no less than the meaning of its default
> graph).   So I propose we amend [1] very slightly to include this bit.
> That will allow us to achieve the intent of [1], that dataset semantics
> can be defined elsewhere.      If we don't do anything, I imagine most
> of us will proceed as if this were in the spec, but some people might
> not, and that would reduce interoperability.

+1, this really looks like the minimum we'll really need.



--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Saturday, 8 June 2013 12:50:15 UTC