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

Re: Dataset Semantics

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 18:32:40 -0500
Cc: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C9DBEA7D-A165-4635-BE86-AE18178FAA73@ihmc.us>
To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Whoops. But its good that we both agree, I guess. 

Pat

On Sep 20, 2012, at 10:01 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> 
> 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.
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Sep/0151.html
> 
> peter
> 
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2012 23:33:11 GMT

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