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

Re: Draft for a "minimal dataset semantics"

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 18:20:13 -0400
Message-ID: <50525C1D.6040607@gmail.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
CC: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>

On 09/13/2012 04:45 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On 13 Sep 2012, at 19:13, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

>> PS:  Here is a reiteration of the old proposals.
>>
>> There is no independent notion of interpretations of RDF datasets.    If you want to do something like entailment between RDF datasets you can either look at one component of the dataset, so you ask whether the default graphs sit in an entailment relationship or ask whether the graphs with a particular name sit in an entailment relationship, or you can look at the entire dataset, so you ask whether the default graphs sit in an entailment relationship and all the similarly-named graphs sit in an entailment relationship.  In each case you probably want to consider a missing named graph to be the empty graph.  This ends up being more flexible and considerably simpler than the minimal semantics currently being proposed, as well as requiring no new reasoning machinery.
> The downside is that this design provides no foundation for these kinds of extensions:
> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs/Minimal-dataset-semantics#Possible_Semantic_Extensions
>
> Best,
> Richard

I don't see a downside here.

peter
Received on Thursday, 13 September 2012 22:20:43 GMT

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