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

Re: RDF-ISSUE-120 (set-of-triples-are-graphs): Is any set of RDF triples an RDF graph? [RDF Concepts]

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:54:40 -0700
Message-ID: <5141E4B0.5050901@gmail.com>
To: RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
CC: RDF Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
I'm confused here.

What do you see to indicate that a particular set of triples cannot form an 
RDF graph?

I assume that you are talking about issues of bnode scope.  However, I don't 
see anything in the discussion of bnode scope that prevents any particular set 
of triples from being an RDF graph.  As far as I can tell, bnode scope could 
be completely removed from Semantics without changing anything.

Yes, there is a change in the semantics.  Previously the merge of RDF graphs 
involved changing bnodes as necessary.  This is no longer the case, which does 
change how RDF works, but this change is being made to conform to practice.


On 03/14/2013 02:39 AM, RDF Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> RDF-ISSUE-120 (set-of-triples-are-graphs): Is any set of RDF triples an RDF graph? [RDF Concepts]
> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/120
> Raised by: Antoine Zimmermann
> On product: RDF Concepts
> All work on RDF until early 2013 have been made under the assumption that a set of RDF triples is an RDF Graph (and vice versa). Recent discussions on bnode scope suggest that there are combinations of RDF triples that do not form a graph. Precisely, the idea is that only the triples that belong to the same "scope" (whatever that means) can be in the same RDF graph.
> This also impact the definition of an RDF triple, as there can be two blank nodes in the same triple.
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2013 14:55:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:26 UTC