W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > March 2013

RDF-ISSUE-121 (merge-is-union): Should the merge of two RDF graphs be defined as their set union? [RDF Concepts]

From: RDF Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:46:00 +0000
Message-Id: <E1UG4jY-0004F7-FZ@tibor.w3.org>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
RDF-ISSUE-121 (merge-is-union): Should the merge of two RDF graphs be defined as their set union? [RDF Concepts]

http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/121

Raised by: Antoine Zimmermann
On product: RDF Concepts

(Note: I'm not sure whether it belong to RDF Semantics or RDF Concepts but probably both)

RDF Semantics is currently proposing to define merge as the set union of RDF graphs. Note that if not all sets of triples are RDF graphs (see ISSUE-120) then union of RDF graphs may not be an RDF graph.

Defining the merge as the union also means that a set of RDF graphs is not equivalent to its merge.
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2013 09:46:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:11 UTC