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: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 09:10:50 +0200
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5D6BF665-9F3B-4551-91CA-6B5C0E433A69@w3.org>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>

On Apr 16, 2011, at 18:23 , Richard Cyganiak wrote:

> Pat,
> 
> On 14 Apr 2011, at 18:09, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> The 'naming' of graphs in SPARQL is a wholly SPARQL-local business,
> 
> What I want to see is an adoption of SPARQL's “naming” mechanism into the RDF data model. This would make this “SPARQL-local business” a proper part of RDF.
> 
>> unrelated to RDF semantics 
> 
> Correct, and that's not a bug, it's a feature.
> 
> 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.

Strictly speaking, this statement is gradually getting overhauled. SPARQL 1.1 Entailment regimes:

http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-entailment/

explicitly binds entailment to SPARQL. And I believe that his a good thing.

Ivan


> Semantic extensions (like Antoine's import proposal) can of course extend the RDF Model Theory in order to explain their extended notion of entailment.
> 
>> and therefore to any RDF content. 
> 
> This does not follow. “RDF content” is the triples in the data model.
> 
> Best,
> Richard


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf







Received on Sunday, 17 April 2011 07:10:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:41 GMT