ISSUE-121: Should the merge of two RDF graphs be defined as their set union?

merge-is-union

Should the merge of two RDF graphs be defined as their set union?

State:
CLOSED
Product:
RDF Concepts
Raised by:
Antoine Zimmermann
Opened on:
2013-03-14
Description:
(Note: I'm not sure whether it belong to RDF Semantics or RDF Concepts but probably both)

RDF Semantics is currently proposing to define merge as the set union of RDF graphs. Note that if not all sets of triples are RDF graphs (see ISSUE-120) then union of RDF graphs may not be an RDF graph.

Defining the merge as the union also means that a set of RDF graphs is not equivalent to its merge.
Related Actions Items:
No related actions
Related emails:
  1. Re: RDF-ISSUE-121 (merge-is-union): Should the merge of two RDF graphs be defined as their set union? [RDF Concepts] (from phayes@ihmc.us on 2013-03-14)
  2. RDF-ISSUE-121 (merge-is-union): Should the merge of two RDF graphs be defined as their set union? [RDF Concepts] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2013-03-14)

Related notes:

I believe that this issue has been resolved without being opened.

There are two ways to combine RDF graphs - union and merge - with wording on which is to be used in which circumstances.

Peter Patel-Schneider, 3 Jul 2013, 14:38:10

Display change log ATOM feed


Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, Chair, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Staff Contacts
Tracker: documentation, (configuration for this group), originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <w3t-sys@w3.org>.
$Id: 121.html,v 1.1 2014-07-09 12:17:55 carine Exp $