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

Re: life without dataset semantics

From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 19:38:29 -0400
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, "public-rdf-wg@w3.org Group WG" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7A46EB13-CCF7-4A68-8645-7D6A04224B66@3roundstones.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
On Sep 18, 2012, at 19:22, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:

> 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?

If the WG doesn't say anything at all about the semantics, how can anyone tell you that doing so is a bad idea in relation to the spec?  Note that I didn't say "stop you from doing so", because that can't happen in any case.

Regards,
Dave


> 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 23:38:57 GMT

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