W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > September 2013

Re: defn of Named Graph

From: Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 09:42:02 -0700
Cc: Gregg Reynolds <dev@mobileink.com>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8B688F66-E953-4EB7-A1D3-E48B30483B04@syapse.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>



On Sep 22, 2013, at 5:11 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:

>> 
>> RDF datasets may be used to express RDF content. When used in this way, a dataset should be understood to have at least the same content as its default graph. Note however that replacing the default graph of a dataset by a logically equivalent graph will not in general produce a structurally similar dataset, since it may for example disrupt co-occurrences of blank nodes between the default graph and other graphs in the dataset, which may be important for reasons other than the semantics of the graphs in the dataset.
>> 
>> Other semantic extensions and entailment regimes may place further semantic conditions and restrictions on RDF datasets, just as with RDF graphs. One such extension, for example, could set up a modal-like interpretation structure so that entailment between datasets would require RDF graph entailments between the graphs with the same name (adding in empty graphs as required).
>> 
>> ]]
>> 
>> 
>> (I didn't really understand the last two sentences and just left them unchanged and crossed my fingers)
> 
> The idea is to allow extensions which DO impose this naming condition. 

I at least read the last paragraph as a lot stronger than my (i think more modest) proposal, and the penultimate paragraph as somewhat orthogonal (the default graph is not of great interest to me )
Received on Monday, 23 September 2013 16:42:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:44:23 UTC