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

attempts to reconciliate quote-semantics and "context"-semantics (Was: Re: RDF dataset semantics again)

From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:57:31 +0200
Message-ID: <5034F35B.60906@emse.fr>
To: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
So, I made a new wiki page in a tentative to reconciliate the different
semantics.

http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs/Dataset-semantics-2.0

Basically, I define a super-weak semantics of RDF graph, which can be
used as an underlying entailment regime for the dataset semantics of [1].

Then, I put an example of a possible vocabulary to allow more 
expressiveness. The vocabulary is mirroring some of the terms of SPARQL 
1.1 service descriptions [2].

This truly makes the "base" semantics very very weak but allows one to 
extend it to any variant on top of it.


[1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs/Dataset-semantics
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-sparql11-service-description-20091022/


AZ

Le 22/08/2012 16:33, Ivan Herman a écrit :
>
> On Aug 22, 2012, at 15:54 , Pat Hayes wrote:
>
>>
>> On Aug 22, 2012, at 2:04 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 21, 2012, at 21:48 , Pat Hayes wrote: [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Antoine, I have the impression that we are actually in
>>>>> agreement. The document we have put forward has two essential
>>>>> points:
>>>>>
>>>>> - we would have a default semantics in the form of the
>>>>> quoting semantics
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Whoa. I do not know what y'all mean by a "default semantics".
>>>> Is this a default that can be overridden? If so, I know of NO
>>>> semantic theory  anywhere in logic or linguistics that can
>>>> provide this. If y'all want this, you are on your own.
>>>>
>>>> If not, what exactly is it supposed to mean?
>>>>
>>>> Pat
>>>
>>>
>>> What I meant is: this is the semantics that is standardized to be
>>> valid in the absence of any other indication. I did not say
>>> anything else.
>>
>> And Antoine agrees. OK, then a better term would be "weak" or
>> "minimal" semantics. "default" sounds like nomonotonicity (being
>> overridable) to me.
>
> Agreed, sorry for my sloppiness. 'Minimal' sounds indeed good to me.
>
> Ivan
>
>
>>
>> Pat
>>
>>>
>>> Ivan
>>>
>>>
>>> ---- 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------ 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
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Antoine Zimmermann
ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol
École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne
158 cours Fauriel
42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2
France
Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03
Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66
http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 14:57:58 UTC

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