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

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

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:39:15 -0400
Message-ID: <5058A3B3.5000408@gmail.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org

On 09/18/2012 12:26 PM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
> Le 18/09/2012 15:27, Peter F. Patel-Schneider a écrit :
>>
>
[...]

>
>
> Would you be able to address your own requirements and my own requirements 
> with a mathematically sound and complete proposal that defines a notion of 
> dataset interpretation?
>
> I summarise your requirements as: entailment can be performed completely 
> separately between named graphs and default graphs, and nothing can make a 
> dataset inconsistent.
> My requirements are summarised as followed: if G  E-entails  G' according to 
> a RDF graph entailment regime E, then:
>
>  { G }  E-dataset-entails  { G' }
>
> and for all IRIs n:
>
>  <n> { G }  E-dataset-entails  <n> { G' }
>
> ?
>
> I can see solutions for this, but they are not elegant at all.
>

I agree, which is why I'm not in favour of providing RDF-style interpretations 
for datasets at all.

On the other hand, it is perfectly find to talk about entailments between the 
graphs in an RDF dataset, and one can if one wants define entailments between 
RDF datasets themselves without providing interpretations for RDF datasets at all.

peter
Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2012 16:39:47 GMT

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