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

OK, I see where you could be concerned that there is too much concern on
scoping in the current semantics document.  My solution to that would be to
remove the only place where scoping matters at all in the semantics (sorry
for not catching that in my previous posts).   Requiring that the bnode map
(A) is relative to a scope is not needed in the semantics, as far as I can
see.  All that matters is that A interprets all the bnodes in the graph.

The second fix would then be to modify the conditions for a set of graphs
to entail their union.  Instead of talking about scoping graphs and being
complete with respect the scope, it would say something relative to the
union graph, such as the suggestion I made earlier.  I think that the
result could also be generalized to only require that all the triples with
a particular bnode in the union graph to show up on one of the component
graphs.

peter