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

Re: [GRAPH] graph deadlock?

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 09:29:28 +0100
Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, W3C RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <3707CE20-5FF2-430D-93F1-4E5E666B58A0@w3.org>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Pat,

On Dec 20, 2011, at 05:45 , Pat Hayes wrote:

[skip]

> 
> Now, consider the case where a URI  UUU is used as a graph label in a dataset, and also occurs in the RDF inside a graph in that same dataset, where it is interpreted as denoting, say, a human being or a mailbox. OK so far. Now, however, add the dataset some more RDF (perhaps in the default graph used to express some metadata, for example) in which that same URI is intended to be used to refer to the graph that it labels. There are *no* RDF interpretations in which a single URIref can denote two different things. So this dataset as a whole has no satisfying interpretations. So it is formally inconsistent. Moreover, the inconsistency arises directly, and obviously, from this usage in which a URI is used to "name" something other than what everyone agrees it is in fact interpreted to mean (as, vividly, in Ivan's example using an email address). And this is, surely, *obviously* at odds with the basic assumption of the entire Web, that URIs, when considered as names, identify *one* thing. 
> 

is 'labeling' and 'identifying' the same? My non-semantics dataset view talks about labeling only. 'Indexing' may be another term. 

I come back to the quad store example. I do not believe that quad stores make any assumption, by default, to the behaviour of the URI-s in the 4th column, they are just 'there'. 

Ivan




>> 
>> When you say “this is illegal in RDF” then I think this has to be read as “I don't like it”.
> 
> No, I mean it violates the semantic assumptions of the (normative) RDF model. I might suggest that when you say "It isnt illegal", this has to be read as "I havnt understood the semantics spec."
> 
>>> We could simply declare that RDF has no semantics, and is simply to be used by programmers to mess around with in ways they find handy. Really, this might be the best way to move forward. But until we do this, we have to take the semantics seriously. 
>> 
>> Or we could just not bother giving any formal semantics to any new parts that are added to RDF. Several parts of RDF don't have a formal semantics and work pretty much fine anyways, e.g., RDF lists.
> 
> They have no semantics because they dont need any semantics. If a list had a semantics, it would describe the list. Those are basically LISP S-expressions coded into RDF triples: they *exhibit* the required structure rather than *describe* it. 
> 
> But I agree, we could indeed not give semantics to new parts. The sticking point, however, is that this particular 'new' part is already using the 2004 RDF semantics, but it is using it incorrectly. 
> 
> Pat
> 
>> 
>> Best,
>> Richard
>> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
> 40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2011 08:29:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:46 GMT