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

Re: Three solution designs to the first three Graphs use cases

From: Charles Greer <cgreer@marklogic.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:14:29 -0800
Message-ID: <4F26CFF5.8020300@marklogic.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
CC: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, "public-rdf-wg@w3.org WG" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>

> Right, exactly. This is THE semantic issue here. If we are planning to incorporate any kind of state- or time-sensitive meanings into the RDF semantics, then the whole RDF model needs to be re-thought from the ground up. RIght now, RDF HAS NO NOTION OF STATE OR TIME OR CHANGE IN IT ANYWHERE. (Sorry about the shouting, but it is apparently needed.)  If we are going to put that idea in, the change to RDF will be far more profound and far-reaching than anything we have considered so far. The resulting language will not resemble current RDF at all at the semantic level. It will no longer mesh with OWL or RIF or any of the other formalisms that have been built on it.  Is this kind of a change within our charter?
>
> Pat
I've been mulling this over too with regard to the document-signing 
discussion.  It seems as though even the notion of a referenced graph 
literal falls into this trap.  Since it's trivial, and part of RDF, for 
anybody to extend a graph, then the very notion of a graph literal seems 
to require something like the signing operation that Gavin proposed.

I'd offer the notion that the 'fourth position' is semantically ONLY a 
way to group triples.  The scope of that grouping is probably safe at 
the document level -- but we should recommend a "skolemized syntax" as a 
safe method to resolve bnode ambiguity.  There's probably a predicate 
that can be inferred from using the fourth position (i.e. log:semantics) 
but even that seems like it belongs to a higher-level spec than RDF.  
Given that we cannot find common ground for the meaning of named graphs, 
it seems fitting to punt and allow other specifications to overload that 
meaning.  It's what's happening now, and I cannot see a rapprochement 
between the RESTful view and the graph-literal view without resorting to 
the semantics of specifications outside the scope of RDF.

A naive view perhaps but I'm not sure I've seen anyone come out and say 
it yet.

Charles

>
>
>
>> 	Andy
>>
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Charles Greer
Senior Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
charles.greer@marklogic.com
Phone: +1 707 408 3277
www.marklogic.com

This e-mail and any accompanying attachments are confidential. The information is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any review, disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this e-mail communication by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately by returning this message to the sender and delete all copies. Thank you for your cooperation.
Received on Monday, 30 January 2012 17:15:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:47 GMT