On 07/26/2013 06:21 PM, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
Ah, and I just came across some other relevant text:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-sparql11-query-20130321/#namedGraphs
The |FROM NAMED| syntax suggests that the IRI identifies the
corresponding graph, but the relationship between an IRI and a graph
in an RDF dataset is indirect.*The IRI identifies a resource, and the
resource is represented by a graph (or, more precisely: by a document
that serializes a graph).*
Given that the text in bold is already normative,
Normative for SPARQL UPDATE is not the same as normative for RDF ...
am I detecting some part of the RDF WG that somehow wishes to go back
on that.
I'm not sure we're going back on that so much as noticing how vague that
text is. It doesn't rule out that the resource is the graph (as in the
case you are maybe saying you want).
I do not believe that my ideal outcome would be no more than the text
in bold.
I can't understand your double negative, sorry.
-- Sandro
Jeremy J Carroll
Principal Architect
Syapse, Inc.
On Jul 26, 2013, at 9:37 AM, Jeremy J Carroll <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I slept on Eric's question for several days ….
I ended up realizing that another aspect of the current drafts that I
feel should change a bit is:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-mt/index.html#rdf-datasets
"When a graph name is used inside RDF triples in a dataset it may or
may not refer to the graph it names. The semantics does not require,
nor should RDF engines presume, without some external reason to do
so, that graph names used in RDF triples refer to the graph they name."
I would like some mechanism which indicates clearly that in my case
it MAY refer to the graph it names, and I am proposing that
<uuu> rdf:type rdfs:Graph
be such a mechanism, and this be understood with intensional
semantics like rdfs:Class rather than with extensional semantics like
owl:Restriction
i.e. if in any graph in a dataset, there is such a triple, and we
have an interpretation of that graph, and that the dataset does
include a graph named <uuu> then it is pretty clear that the intent
is that I am talking about the graph, and I would like the
recommendations to say that in such interpretation it is this graph
that we are talking about.
Jeremy J Carroll
Principal Architect
Syapse, Inc.
On Jul 19, 2013, at 9:06 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Jul 19, 2013 2:10 PM, "Jeremy J Carroll" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> Sorry, I am failing to be brief ...
>
> On Jul 19, 2013, at 9:35 AM, Jeremy J Carroll <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>> [[[
>>
>> rdfs:Graph
>>
>> rdfs:Graph is the class of graphs. All instances
of rdfs:Graph correspond to the RDF model of a graph described in
the RDF Concepts specification [RDF-CONCEPTS].
>> An instance of rdfs:Graph MAY also be described in an RDF
dataset, in which case the triples in the graph SHOULD/MUST be the
triples as specified in the dataset.
>>
>> ]]]
>>
>>
>> (I would be happy with either SHOULD or MUST)
>
>
> looking again, MUST is too strong - since this would allow anyone
to modify anyone's else's intent. We need to qualify which RDF
datasets and reduce the MUST down to SHOULD.
> e.g. "MAY also be described in a related RDF dataset, ….. SHOULD
…." with the complete modified suggested text as
>
> [[[
>
> rdfs:Graph
>
> rdfs:Graph is the class of graphs. All instances
of rdfs:Graph correspond to the RDF model of a graph described in
the RDF Concepts specification [RDF-CONCEPTS].
> An instance of rdfs:Graph MAY also be described in a related RDF
dataset, in which case the triples in the graph SHOULD be the
triples as specified in the dataset.
>
> ]]]
Sorry to be dim here, but does "the triples as specified in the
dataset" indicate a truth predicate of some sort (in which case I
would have expected "indicated" instead of "specified"). Or maybe
I'm misinterpreting a signal that another graph (probably the
default graph) includes all of the triples in the identified graph.
