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 14:10:14 -0400
Message-ID: <5058B906.6090700@gmail.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
CC: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>, "public-rdf-wg@w3.org Group WG" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>

On 09/18/2012 01:46 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> On 09/18/2012 12:00 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>
>> On 09/18/2012 10:40 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>>

[...]
>
>> If you really want [to state that graphs come from somewhere] then don't 
>> you need a theory of web retrieval and something in the semantics stating 
>> that named graphs are the result of this retrieval?
>>
>
> That's for down-the-road, when someone actually wants to define 
> eg1:lastModified.  For today, it seems to me we just need to define some way 
> that someone CAN define/document an RDF predicate that involves the triples 
> in the name graph.

Perhaps, but I don't see that the minimal semantics goes any appreciable 
distance down that road.  At the same time the minimal semantics does make 
certain choices that people may not want to make.

>
> Here's a much better example, because it stays away from Web stuff:
>
>     <g1> eg:sendCorrectionsTo <mailto:sandro@w3.org>.
>     <g1> { w3c:group35462 rdfs:label "SPARQL Working Group" }.
>     <g2> eg:sendCorrectionsTo <mailto:ivan@w3.org>.
>     <g2> { w3c:group44350 rdfs:label "RDFa Working Group" }.
>
>
> There's an obvious meaning to the predicate eg:sendCorrectionsTo, but how do 
> I express that meaning?    Something like:
>
>     X eg:sendCorrectionsTo Y
>
>         Note: only meaningful inside a dataset which has a named graph with
>         the name X.
>
>         Meaning: Y is a good email address for sending corrections to the
>         information in the named graph X.
>
> Are you comfortable with that?

I don't know if comfortable is the right word.  I don't have problems with 
anyone wanting to do that.  I can see that if this is the stance that someone 
wants to take with respect to named graphs, then one might want to have the 
relationship between IRIs and graphs work the way it works in the minimal 
semantics.

However,  I don't think that everyone wants to have this connection.

peter
Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2012 18:10:49 GMT

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