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

life without dataset semantics

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 19:22:10 -0400
Message-ID: <50590222.7030104@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>
So, elsewhere you're proposing we not have dataset semantics.   I think 
I'm okay with that, if I can still do what I'm trying to do here.      
What I'm not entirely clear on is how I can do this without any 
semantics....

On 09/18/2012 02:10 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>
>> 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.

My question is really: do you think that definition/documentation means 
what I want it to and will work the way I want it to, if the RDF WG 
doesn't give Datasets any semantics?

That is, if the WG doesn't say anything about graph-name URIs connecting 
to URIs as used in the default graph, can I just spell all that out (as 
above) in the documentation of my predicate?

And if I can't, then what alternative do I have for sharing this kind of 
information structure?

>   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.

What I'm asking for is an extremely weak connection; it's hard for me to 
see how it would do any harm, since it would only come into play when 
someone ask for it.

       -- Sandro
Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2012 23:22:19 GMT

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