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

Re: Re 2: Agenda for 19 Sep 2012

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 07:58:12 -0400
Message-ID: <505861D4.9040107@gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>, "public-rdf-wg@w3.org Group WG" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
There are other differences.

As far as the entailments go, the minimal semantics proposal has the property 
that if the default graph is inconsistent, then the named graphs do not matter 
for entailment.


On 09/18/2012 06:58 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> Peter,
> On Sep 17, 2012, at 20:02 , Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> My participation this week is at risk.
>> 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.
> Again for my understanding. Unless I miss something fundamental, everything you say is possible with the proposed semantics up to the statement "any commitment to having the names being formally related to the graphs". Indeed, the current IGEXT mechanism does impose a (albeit fairly weak) relationship between the name and the graph.
> Is there any other major difference between what you propose and what is on the wiki page?
> Ivan
Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2012 11:58:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:07 UTC