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

different Semantics proposals (Re: Agenda for 19 Sep 2012)

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:46:07 -0400
Message-ID: <50578C0F.8030507@w3.org>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
CC: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>, "public-rdf-wg@w3.org Group WG" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 09/17/2012 02:02 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> My participation this week is at risk.
>

Unfortunately timing; maybe this can be sorted out somewhat in email 
before the meeting.

> I cast my vote AGAINST:
>
> PROPOSED: Editors should integrate the "Minimal Semantics" design and 
> included test cases into Working Drafts and the Test Suite, with the 
> understanding that this is the approach we will use unless serious 
> problems emerge. Any specific issues people have with this design 
> should be RAISE'd soon.
>
> As indicated multiple times in the past, I am in favour of a weaker 
> semantics for RDF datasets either no semantics at all or maybe 
> something like.
> 1/ No change to the semantics for RDF graphs.
> 2/ Entailment between RDF datasets  D1=<G1,N1> and D2=<G2,N2> is 
> defined as
>     a) G1 entails G2
>     b) for each <n,g> in N2 there is some <n,g'> in N2 such that g' 
> entails g,
>                                   or if there is no such <n,g'> then 
> the empty RDF graph entails g
> I could also live with a semantics that eliminated this last disjunct.
>
> My reasons for preferring a weaker semantics are that I don't want to 
> have certain uses for RDF datasets ruled out by a particular semantics 
> at this time, when no one know just how RDF datasets will be used.   
> One kind of use that I am thinking of is just using RDF datasets to 
> record multiple graphs, which no commitment to any interchange of 
> information between the named graphs or between the default graph and 
> the named graphs or even any commitment to having the names being 
> formally related to the graphs.
>

Can you be a little more specific, and tell a story about something 
specific someone is likely to want to do that they could do with your 
proposed semantics and not with the proposal on the agenda?

(The two things I see are: (1) the default graph being "asserted", which 
seems easy enough to work around if desired [just use a named graph], 
and (2) URIs being interpreted the same way throughout the dataset... 
but I can't see what harm that could cause.   Maybe I'm on the wrong 
track.  Okay, I'm also concerned about unwanted-but-valid inference 
being done, but that's an issue throughout RDF, not just about datasets.)

       -- Sandro

> peter
>
>
>
> On 09/17/2012 12:36 PM, David Wood wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Updates to the agenda:
>>
>> - Provenance Constraints agendum added.
>> - Changed graphs proposal wording.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 17 September 2012 20:46:16 GMT

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