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