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

Re: Are you planning to use the Dataset Semantics?

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 01:07:21 -0500
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, W3C RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A497AE2E-431F-47E6-8A45-1429762ACF80@ihmc.us>
To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>

On Sep 26, 2012, at 12:55 AM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:

> Le 26/09/2012 03:54, Pat Hayes a écrit :
>> 
>> On Sep 25, 2012, at 5:16 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> For myself, at this point I'm 70% convinced that I can implement
>>> all the dataset use cases I understand (the ones I enumerated in
>>> the Federated Phonebook examples, plus SPARQL dump/restore) without
>>> any standard dataset semantics beyond having a standard place for
>>> metadata (eg the default graph in trig and the service description
>>> graph in SPARQL).
>> 
>> Sandro, how can you use metadata *at all* without some way to force a
>> URI to denote a graph? When you use the URI in the metadata RDF, what
>> (semantic or even pragmatic) constraint ensures that what it denotes
>> there is the graph that you have in mind? Or indeed, that it is a
>> graph at all?
> 
> Most metadata in the world are provided without any formal semantics that enforces denotation. You know it's metadata about something because it follows the specs.

Most metadata (in fact, most data) is provided in a context where no semantic claims are made. The semantic web claims to be more than this, and to have a globally coherent, formal, semantics. Without that, the semantic web is just a random muddle of local ad-hoc conventions which may or may not be compatible with one another, just like the world had always been. 

We can give up on this global vision, and rejoice in the fact that what we are doing is pretty much just continuing the global mess that existed before the Web was even invented, in which case I see no point in even continuing to argue about semantics at all; or, we can take the sematnics seriously, and try to make it fit what people want to use the formalisms for. 

And just to rub the point home, the RDF specs *do* talk about semantics, so "following from the specs" might well be inderstood to mean "following from the semantics". 

Pat

> 
> 
>> 
>> Pat
>> 
>>> 
>>> -- Sandro
>>> 
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#cfr
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------ 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Antoine Zimmermann
> ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol
> École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne
> 158 cours Fauriel
> 42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2
> France
> Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 83 36
> Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66
> http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
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 Wednesday, 26 September 2012 06:07:55 GMT

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