On Sep 22, 2013, at 5:11 PM, Pat Hayes <[email protected]> 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 …)
