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

Re: Test cases and examples for dataset entailment

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:46:06 +0100
Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <6F0F875D-652E-4098-8E1F-13DB50635702@cyganiak.de>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
On 10 Sep 2012, at 17:30, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> Two other things that I'd quite like to see before we can call the proposal complete:
> 
> 1. Some thinking on how it addresses our graph use cases. (Do we have an “official” list of those? I've lost track with all the various documents.)
> 
> 2. Some examples for semantic extensions, in order to show that various other proposed semantics can actually be done as proper semantic extensions of this minimal dataset semantics.

I've worked a bit on this item and made attempts to formalize three semantic extensions:

* owl:imports (formally explains how owl:imports works in RDF datasets)
* web datasets (formally defines that stuff published on the web is asserted)
* direct graph semantics (permits "literal" immutable graphs)

http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs/Minimal-dataset-semantics#Possible_Semantic_Extensions

I'm not proposing that we should standardize any of this; the intention is merely to explore how flexible/extensible the semantics proposed on that page is.

Again, I'm not really good at this formal semantics stuff, so this might all be spectacularly wrong.

Best,
Richard
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2012 09:46:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:51 GMT