RE: datasets mean their default graphs?

On Thursday, June 20, 2013 6:09 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> >> 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.

Oh OK.. I got it now. Thanks. Yeah, that's something that should be
highlighted.


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Thursday, 20 June 2013 20:47:29 UTC