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

Re: RDF-ISSUE-98 (graph-dataset-semantics-unified): Should the semantics of RDF graphs and the semantics of RDF datasets be combined into one unified semantics? [RDF Semantics]

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 13:39:04 +0100
Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <E227BC3B-09F7-44E1-8A8F-A6E2726C7D02@cyganiak.de>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
On 13 Sep 2012, at 13:12, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> We would have to be careful to explain why we then don't have datasets-inside-datasets and "named datasets".  

It's a somewhat arbitrary restriction in the abstract syntax that makes implementations simpler while still allowing the use cases we care most about to be addressed.

> It's not a block to the idea but keeping them separate does make it clearer where the boundary is.

I think that keeping them separate would make the Semantics document more complicated. The Semantics document is complicated enough as it is. I think making it more complicated to account for a syntactic restriction is not a good idea. If writing a semantics that is more general than necessary for the abstract syntax turns out to be simpler, then readers are better served by the simpler thing, IMO.

A related case here is literals-as-subjects, which is a well-motivated restriction that I never would want to remove, but I'd prefer if the Semantics document would use a generalized notion of RDF graphs that doesn't have the restriction, because that would remove probably a page of pointless and hard-to-understand trickery that is needed to work around the restriction. At least I personally found that a barrier to understanding the document.

Best,
Richard
Received on Thursday, 13 September 2012 12:39:32 GMT

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