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

Re: ISSUE 144, minor wording issue about datasets in Semantics

From: Peter Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 07:44:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMpDgVz8d00GdtKxoMtAgtofaMH=XMz+gV3wZaAE8KM_a7nYBQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Patrick J. Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Just deferring to Concepts would work as well.

I'll make the change in the document so that people can see how it looks
during the TC today.

peter



On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Patrick J. Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:

> I think Semantics should just refer to Concepts without attempting to
> paraphrase it.
>
> RDF datasets are defined in [RDF11-CONCEPTS].
>
> Pat
>
>
>
> Andy Seaborne , 10/2/2013 3:04 AM:
>
> On 02/10/13 01:21, Peter Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > Yes, indeed the wording should be adjusted.
> >
> > I suggest a minimal change in wording to:
> >
> > An RDF dataset (see [RDF11-CONCEPTS]) is a finite set of RDF graphs each
> > paired with one or more IRIs or blank nodes, each of which being a name
> > of the graph
> >
> > although this is probably not the smoothest way of saying what is meant.
> >
> >
> > peter
> >
>
> Another problem is that the same IRI can be paired multiple times.  It
> needs to say the IRIs/blank nodes are uniquely paired.
>
> (<iri>, G1) (<iri>, G2)
>
> fits the description in semantics.
>
> Why not adopt the languge from, or at least closer to, RDF concepts?
>
> Talking about pairing one graph with one or more IRIs or blank nodes is
> not clear (to me at least).
>
>     Andy
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2013 14:45:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:33 UTC