- From: Gregg Reynolds <dev@mobileink.com>
- Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2013 11:49:17 -0500
- To: public-lod@w3.org
Hi folks, A couple of years ago I got the idea of finding alternatives to the official definition of RDF, especially the semantics. I've always found the official docs less than crystal clear, and have always harbored the suspicion that the model-theoretic definition of RDF semantics offered in http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/ was unnecessary, or at least unnecessarily complicated. Needless to say that is my own personal aesthetic judgment, but it did motivate my little project. I guess the past two years have not been completely wasted on me; what was a somewhat vague intuition back then seems to have matured into a pretty clear idea of how RDF ought to be conceptualized and formally defined. Clear to me, anyway; whether it is to others, and whether it is correct or not is a whole 'nother matter. Since pursuing this idea will involve a lot of writing I won't pursue it here; instead I've described the the basic ideas in a blog post at http://blog.mobileink.com/. The allusion to Wittgenstein, that great philosophical therapist, is entirely intentional. You (or at least I) find out a lot of things when you analyze a concept very closely; if my analysis is not mistaken, there are some fundamental problems in the land of RDF. For example, it is possible to show, among other things, that the concept of a graph is not essential to RDF; nor is the treatment of the Property node of a triple as an arrow or relation necessary; nor is the concrete semantics defined in the RDF Semantics document the only or even the best "theory" of RDF. (Maybe this is all obvious to the cognoscenti, but insistence that RDF just is a graph is very common.) On the positive side, thinking about RDF as a mathematical domain (or domains), independent of RDF as a language, leads to a pretty substantial improvement in clarity; and since it requires a certain amount of creativity it's just fun. The reason I'm posting this here is because I will need some help, especially from real mathematicians and logicians. A category theorist, for example. Not only to check my reasoning; my hope is that others interested in pursuing this line of thought might come up with yet other fresh ideas. Plus, I've had a lot of fun thinking along those lines, and since a lot of people on this list spend a lot of time thinking about RDF (among other things), I thought they might find it interesting and fun as well. The plan is to post a series of blog articles fleshing out the ideas in coming months, so if anybody would like to help or collaborate please let me know. Cheers, Gregg Reynolds
Received on Sunday, 23 June 2013 16:49:44 UTC