- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:34:04 +0200
- To: <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Thursday, June 20, 2013 1:28 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> On 20/06/13 07:43, Pat Hayes wrote:
> > Have we agreed on Sandro's idea for the meaning of a datastore to be
> > that of its default graph? I would like to add this paragraph to
> > Semantics, section 10:
I think we have:
https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-06-12#resolution_1
> > <p>If a dataset is published as an assertion then it MUST be
> > interpreted to be an assertion of its default graph. Semantic
> > extensions MAY impose extra conditions which require other named
> > graphs to be interpreted in particular ways. </p>
> >
> > Pat
>
> Something needs to be said that structural bnode-isomorphism and the
> meaning of the dataset are now separate issues, unlike graphs.
>
> # Dataset D1 - links to bnode graph
> { :s1 :observed _:a }
> _:a {:s2 :p2 456 }
> _:b {:s2 :p2 123 }
>
> # Dataset D2 - same meaning as D1, no such link
> { :s1 :observed _:z }
> _:a {:s2 :p2 456 }
> _:b {:s2 :p2 123 }
>
> # Dataset D3
> { :s1 :p _:z }
> <g> {:s2 :p _:z }
>
> # Dataset D4 - same meaning as D3, bnode not now shared
> { :s1 :p _:a }
> <g> {:s2 :p _:z }
I think that's what ISSUE-136 is all about, isn't it?
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/136
--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Thursday, 20 June 2013 15:34:42 UTC