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

Re: Dataset Semantics

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:01:20 -0400
Message-ID: <505B2FC0.9010304@gmail.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
CC: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>

On 09/20/2012 10:48 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> Suppose we simply say that {G, N} ds-entails {G' N'} exactly when: G entails G' and for all <n, g'> in N' there is a <n, g> in N with g entails g'. (Same n, note.) This covers the three conditions above, and it does not imply ds-entailment simply from inconsistency of the default graph alone.  (This relies on the idea that a missing graph is understood to be the empty graph, but I think we all assume this, right?)
> This kind of finesses the task of giving a model theory for datasets, so its not exactly a dataset semantics, but it might be enough for our purposes. It is monotonic in the usual senses, eg adding graphs to a dataset does not block any entailments. We could describe it as a constraint on any stronger (and genuine model-theoretic) semantics.
> Comments?
> Pat

Sounds rather familiar.


Received on Thursday, 20 September 2012 15:01:59 UTC

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