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

RDF-ISSUE-106 (concepts-and-semantics): Relationship between RDF Concepts and RDF Semantics [RDF Concepts]

From: RDF Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 16:24:26 +0000
Message-Id: <E1TW8QU-0001Vm-QX@tibor.w3.org>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
RDF-ISSUE-106 (concepts-and-semantics): Relationship between RDF Concepts and RDF Semantics [RDF Concepts]

http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/106

Raised by: Richard Cyganiak
On product: RDF Concepts

The relationship between RDF Concepts and RDF Semantics is poorly defined and needs to be clarified.

A principled decision is necessary on what exactly the “interface” between Concepts and Semantics is. What notions should be defined in what spec? What notions should Concepts import from Semantics (if any)? Does conformance to Concepts depend on conformance to Semantics?

There is currently some stuff in Concepts that perhaps shouldn't be there because it's about Semantics:

* There is a Note on comparing literals that makes a rather oblique reference to semantic notions of comparison.
* There are scattered references to IRI equality and literal equality throughout the text, but nothing on blank node equality or graph equality. The latter concepts would enter RDF Semantics territory. (Graph isomorphism is defined and is a syntactic notion).
* There is a Note on graph merging, a notion that is defined only in RDF Semantics.

Some semantics-related content that perhaps should be in Concepts, but isn't:

* A definition of Graph Merge
* A definition of Lean Graphs
* Import (via reference to Semantics) of notions of equivalence, entailment, inconsistency between RDF graphs (at least informatively)
* At least an informative definition of “entailment regime”?
* Informative entailment rules?
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2012 16:24:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:52 GMT