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, am I detecting some part of the RDF WG that somehow wishes to go back on that. I do not believe that my ideal outcome would be no more than the text in bold. Jeremy J Carroll Principal Architect Syapse, Inc. On Jul 26, 2013, at 9:37 AM, Jeremy J Carroll <j...@syapse.com> 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 <e...@w3.org> wrote: > >> On Jul 19, 2013 2:10 PM, "Jeremy J Carroll" <j...@syapse.com> wrote: >> > >> > Sorry, I am failing to be brief ... >> > >> > On Jul 19, 2013, at 9:35 AM, Jeremy J Carroll <j...@syapse.com> 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. >> >
