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

Re: [All] Proposal: RDF Graph Identification

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 23:41:36 +0100
Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <3CBC6660-9E7D-407B-9926-E631AF6B7FE7@cyganiak.de>
To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
On 20 Aug 2012, at 17:04, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
>> We'd just be separating the RDF semantics from the RDF model and syntax.
>> It would now be okay, according to the spec, to use the RDF model and
>> syntax without using the RDF semantics.
> 
> What does this change to the current situation? RDF semantics is separated from the RDF model & syntax (except that the word "concepts" is used instead of "model") and it is Ok to implement one without the other and this is what people actually do. Not every applications that use RDF have to be reasoners (RDF parsers, W3C RDF validator, RDF editors, some triplestores, linked data browser, etc).
> 
> Moreover, the current RDF 1.1 Concepts explains much better than RDF 1.0 Concept what the concepts are supposed to mean. So I expect that, with the new specs, it will be even easier to implement the model without bothering about the formal semantics.

Exactly.

I'd still like to clarify the relationship between RDF Concepts and RDF Semantics in both documents. How do they relate, who should read them, what does each add to the other? On the RDF Concepts side, this could mean adding a bit more text and motivation to this short subsection here:

http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#entailment

I guess one idea might be to mention the terms "entailment regime" and "semantic extension" here.

Best,
Richard
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 22:42:04 UTC

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