Re: entailments from sets of graphs

On Jun 19, 2013, at 10:50 AM, Peter Patel-Schneider wrote:

> Antoine brought forward what the change in entailment is between 2004
> and 2013.  I did not catch that this was his concern.
> 
> The change is that if you have a set of RDF graphs then they entail
> what their union entails, instead of what their merge entails.
> 
> This is a change.  The question is whether this is a good change or a
> bad change.

To clarify, it is a change only for the case where graphs share blank nodes, which was not considered as a viable case (more an accident to be avoided) in the 2004 specs. 

Pat

> 
> peter
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes

Received on Wednesday, 19 June 2013 17:37:50 UTC