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 16:40:39 -0500
Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, W3C RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <EA9BEA5E-AAAE-4B69-9ECB-8D56D1F83FD1@ihmc.us>
To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>

On Aug 16, 2012, at 4:00 PM, David Wood wrote:

> On Aug 16, 2012, at 14:20, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Mutability only requires changes to the semantics if mutability is perceived as having semantic consequences. So a good place to start might be to ask anyone who thinks it does, to come up with an example involving mutability and entailment (or consistency). For example, if we have explicit time snapshots, then an inconsistency which appears when times can be inferred to overlap might be such an example. 
>>> 
>>>> Pat has said in the past that perhaps we should forgo a semantics for RDF given the widely divergent interpretations in the wild.  I (and others) don't think we can or should just throw away the semantics, if for no other reason than OWL, RIF, etc, currently depend on them.  
>>> 
>>> Well, actually they don't. Both OWL and RIF have their own, normative, sematnics defined independently of RDF. 
>>> 
>> 
>> I cannot check it right now (I write this mail from my mobile) but as far as I remember the RDF compatible semantics of OWL 2 explicitly refers back to the RDF Semantics (of course the 2004 version) in its definiton. To be checked, though.
> 
> OWL 2004 Semantics clearly references both RDF 2004 Concepts and RDF 2004 Semantics normatively [1].

Yes, but it also says that the "direct semantics" is normative for OWL and if there is any clash between that and the RDF-compatible semantics, then the direct semantics wins. So OWL can survive even if RDF semantics goes away. In fact, the OWL specs could be rewritten much more simply if RDF had no semantics at all.  I think something similar is true for RIF, but Sandro can speak to that with more authority.

Pat

> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/#references-normative
> 
> 
>> 
>> Ivan
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
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 21:41:11 UTC

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