W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > August 2012

Re: [All] Proposal: RDF Graph Identification

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:20:26 -0500
Cc: W3C RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Message-Id: <786B8717-924B-4BD7-B73D-3C5FCEC7EEF9@ihmc.us>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>

On Aug 16, 2012, at 9:23 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> OK, let me throw out the first counter-proposal.
> 
> I find that this document goes quite a bit beyond what I think is necessary or desirable to support named graphs.  I propose instead a minimalist version of graph identification.  I will describe this minimalist version by stripping away pieces of the document.
> 
> Major changes:
> 
> 1/ No mutability:
> 
> Mutability is not required for named graphs or graph stores.

>  To effect this change, excise the first part of Section 2, Section 2.1, and Section 2.4.  Also fix up the abstract and Section 1.
> 
> I am somewhat ambivalent about whether the working group should do anything about mutability, but I am sure that the working group should not tie mutability to named graphs and certainly not to datasets.

For the record, I agree, and had already made this suggestion.

> 

> 2/ Semantic fixes
> 
> The document is rather confusing in Section 3.1 where it introduces the semantics of datasets.  I would instead just say that the semantics of the named graphs in a dataset are not affected by the semantics of the default graph.
> 
> I see little to retain in Section 3.2.  I mention two major issues below, but there are also some minor problems.  Also the definition of interpretations of datasets is rather badly flawed, it probably means to refer to interpretations of DG, but I can't tell whether this was just missed or whether some portion of the definition was supposed to be this instead.
> 
> I don't see why the vocabulary of a dataset should include the RDF vocabulary.  Why not just exclude this?  I see no reason make RDF graphs disjoint from literal *values*.

I agree, this is a bug. This should be a syntactic condition on literals, not one on literal values. 

>  If someone wants to create their own datatype for RDF graphs, using whatever syntax they dream up, then why not let them?  I find it very strange to permit repeated names in a dataset.

? I read this condition as prohibiting them. If u1=u2 then G1=G2 so <u1, G1> = <u2, G2>  i.e  it's the same pair, And this ia a set of pairs, so.... 

>  Why not just require unique names (which is already a condition earlier in the document)?

And that is all that needs to be said, in fact. It is a syntactic condition.

>  Certainly permitting unequal but simply equivalent values is without precedent and unsupported.  The possible requirement that graph names not be blank nodes or not literals belongs in a syntax section, not in the semantics.

Quite.

> 
> There does not appear to be any observable differences between the interpretations for RDF graphs and interpretations for datasets, except if a name is used twice, which can lead to inconsistency (even with requirement 2, unless identity for RDF graphs is modified to mean mutual simple entailment).   In any case, Section 2.2 says that names can't be repeated in datasets.  The semantic extension is essentially useless, so should just be eliminated.

No, it says that the graph name URIs are required to denote the named graphs. That is not a trivial or vacuous condition.

> 
> I suggest instead either saying nothing, or saying that the semantics of an RDF dataset is just the semantics of its default graph.
> 
> 
> Minor changes:
> 
> Whether the name of a named graph can be a blank node is mostly a syntactic issue.  Comments about this being a semantic issue should be removed.
> 
> The wording in Section 3.1 is rather confused.  RDF Graphs don't have "truth".  Instead say "semantics".  Similarly, RDF graphs don't have "interpretation", which should also be replaced by "semantics".
> 
> peter
> 
> 
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
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
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2012 18:20:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:06 UTC