W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > April 2011

Re: ISSUE-30: How does SPARQL's notion of RDF dataset relate our notion of multiple graphs?

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 23:53:14 +0100
Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B82A7F69-121F-4CF6-BC0F-E3F66EF0D5B9@cyganiak.de>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>

On 16 Apr 2011, at 22:50, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> This part of SPARQL is successful and useful despite being disconnected from the RDF Model Theory. RDF Datasets as they are defined in SPARQL have no impact on entailments, and therefore do not require a relation to the RDF Model Theory.
> The model theory is the semantics of RDF.

Yes, that's what it says on top of the document.

> It bears on any operation on RDF that is sensitive to the meanings of URIs or triples or literals. It is not purely concerned with entailments.

What operations, beside inference, are you talking about?

My understanding is that the RDF Model Theory exists to define which inferences are valid, given an RDF graph. What other purpose does it serve?

>> “RDF content” is the triples in the data model.
> No, RDF content is the semantic content of the triples in the data model.

We'll have to agree to disagree here.

> The RDF model theory is normative. It is not something that can be handily ignored just because someone does not like it. 

*Reality* is normative. It is not something that can be handily ignored just because someone doesn't like it. The RDF model theory, on the other hand, *is* being ignored by most if not all recent successful RDF-based technologies. This does not appear to be to their detriment.

Received on Saturday, 16 April 2011 22:53:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:58 UTC