- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 22:57:16 +0200
- To: <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Thursday, June 20, 2013 7:31 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> On Jun 20, 2013, at 11:09 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> > ----- s1 observes something.
> > ----- The something is graph value {:s2 :p2 456 }
> > { <> a rdf:BoundDataset .
> > :s1 :observed _:a .
> > }
> > _:a {:s2 :p2 456 }
>
> This is why I wanted to include the labelling-by-bnode as a genuine
> semantic constraint. If we included the equation
>
> I(_:a)= {:s2 :p2 456 }
>
> in the actual semantics, then the local change of bnode in your example
> below would NOT be a valid entailment. And, by the way, there would be
> no need for the rdf:BoundDataset construction.
Yeah, I also would still favor that (and the same for IRIs for that matter).
I believe that's how people will use it in practice regardless of what the
spec says.
--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Thursday, 20 June 2013 20:57:57 UTC