- From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:09:03 +0100
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 20/06/13 16:34, Markus Lanthaler wrote: > 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 It's orthogonal; this does not depend on labelling semantics. Just assume it's the same in D1/D2, and D3/D4 as might happen if a system received such a trig file and republishes it. Add triples if you want to mark the kind of labelling, the example still applies. The datasets have different structures; the linking has changed just by replacing one default graph by another simply-entailed one. This needs to be pointed out close to any text about dataset meaning. [[ 5.3 Simple Entailment Entailment refers only to the truth of RDF graphs, not to their suitability for any other purpose. It is possible for an RDF graph to be fitted for a given purpose and yet validly entail another graph which is not appropriate for the same purpose. ]] although that then is about subgraphs. As blank nodes are said to facilitate denotation, let's stick to that for the discussion here. ----- s1 observes something. ----- The something is graph value {:s2 :p2 456 } { <> a rdf:BoundDataset . :s1 :observed _:a . } _:a {:s2 :p2 456 } ----- s1 observes something ----- There is a graph value floating around. Not connected { <> a rdf:BoundDataset . :s1 :observed _:z . } _:a {:s2 :p2 456 } which are different. Andy > > > > -- > Markus Lanthaler > @markuslanthaler > >
Received on Thursday, 20 June 2013 16:09:34 UTC