Re: datasets mean their default graphs?

On 22/06/13 15:57, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>
>
> Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Sure, but if they don't publish the default graph at all, then there's no worry, is there?

Not from me.

 Andy

>
>      - Sandro
>
>>  Andy
>

Received on Saturday, 22 June 2013 15:19:41 UTC