- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 09:52:43 -0500
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
OK, lets try to find a better way to word it. The point we need to get across is that a dataset can be treated just as an uninterpreted data structure, but *if* it is used to convey RDF content then at a minimum, it must be understood to be asserting its default graph. Sandro thinks, and I agree, that this is an essential condition to have in order to support vocabulary-based semantic extensions. Got a better way to word it? Pat On Jun 21, 2013, at 1:38 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > Given that Semantics doesn't talk about publishing, I don't think that this is a good idea at all. > > peter > > On Jun 19, 2013, at 11:43 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> 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: >> >> <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 >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Friday, 21 June 2013 14:53:09 UTC