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 Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:13:57 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMpDgVypJGejUwY-Opbdj_KiSiWXjUffEZf8QO_FNp6NhfBqrA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
My understanding of the semantics in the current Semantics document is as
follows:

1/ Any set of triples is an RDF graph.
2/ Combining RDF graphs is done by taking the union of the triples in them.

That's is, as far as the semantics goes.  I don't see any wording anywhere
in Semantics to the contrary.

Note that there is no notion of scope here at all, and none of the
semantics depends on scoping in any way.  All of the discussion on scoping
graphs is irrelevant, and the discussion of complete graphs could/should be
rewritten into something like saying that unions are implied by a set of
graphs when each graph includes either all or none of the triples in the
union that include any particular bnode.


The Semantics document also discusses bnode scoping, which is not needed in
the semantics per se, but is needed in surface syntaxes and implementations
that identify bnodes using syntactic elements that can be accidentally
repeated.   Here bnode scope is used to determine when using the same
syntax (e.g., a bnode identifier) results in the same bnode or results in a
different bnode.

Why is this (currently) in Semantics?  Just because it (currently) isn't in
Concepts.



In my opinion, quite a bit of the discussion of scoping in Semantic need
not survive in either Semantic or Concepts, but it might have some
explanatory value so I'm not arguing about removing it.

peter
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2013 17:14:28 UTC

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