Re: datasets mean their default graphs?

On 22/06/13 12:02, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> On 06/22/2013 03:11 AM, Peter Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> I don't see why this is necessary.  Isn't a semantics that gives some
>> meaning to RDF datasets a semantic extension of one that doesn't
>> bother to give meaning to RDF datasets?  It's not, after all, that the
>> RDF semantics prohibits RDF datasets from having meaning.
>>
>> My worry is that there are people who make the default graph be the
>> union of the contents of the named graphs, and thus wouldn't want even
>> this minimal semantics.
>
> It seems me that everyone who makes the default graph be the union would
> fall into one of two camps:  (1) they are comfortable with these
> semantics, because they consider all their named graphs asserted anyway,
> or (2) they don't consider their overall dataset to be asserted.    I
> cringe a little at (2), since it seems like a good practice to only
> publish on the open web things you assert, but it's how things already
> are with people publishing RDF Graphs -- people do publish RDF graphs
> they don't mean -- and the situation doesn't seem to be made much worse
> by adding the default graphs of datasets into that set.
>
>        -- Sandro

Isn't it more likely that they don't publish the default graph at all? 
If the dft graph is the union, just publish the NGs.

	Andy

Received on Saturday, 22 June 2013 13:22:49 UTC