- From: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 14:34:23 +0200
- To: public-declarative-apps@w3.org
Hey all, is anyone in this CG well-versed in, or at least familiar with, denotational semantics? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denotational_semantics https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Andrew.Butterfield/Teaching/CS4003/DenSem-full-book.pdf We had started working on the Linked Data Templates spec structured similarly to XSLT 2.0: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G6Kf_K_YgpQTNgOxz7ZwoAchxwz1onMvOPO92ufLi8A/edit That spec is currently on hold as we decided afterwards that the LDT spec should build on a solid theoretical foundation, much like SPARQL that has an algebra: https://users.dcc.uchile.cl/~cgutierr/papers/sparql.pdf I think the basic idea is there and shows how Linked Data response valuation translates to SPARQL execution. We could however use help with the formal definitions (we are using notation from the Schmidt book). The document is here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F666_aS7IAqFjZesvj-P2OWgpeD5sYgVzZjfv693dz0/edit There is also a high-level overview of LDT in the XML London paper: https://github.com/AtomGraph/Linked-Data-Templates/blob/master/XML%20London%202016%20paper/Linked%20Data%20Templates.pdf The plan is to finish (a basic version of) the LDT definition based on denotational semantics, and then build the specification on top of that, by incorporating relevant pieces from all documents. The AtomGraph processor is the reference implementation, usually ahead of the spec in terms of features: https://github.com/AtomGraph/Processor Any questions or feedback are welcome. Also feel free to comment directly in Google Docs. Martynas atomgraph.com
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2016 12:34:59 UTC