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

Re: Dataset Syntax - checking for consensus

From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 09:23:55 +0200
Message-ID: <5062AD8B.3050900@emse.fr>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
CC: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, W3C RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Le 26/09/2012 07:21, Pat Hayes a écrit :
>
> On Sep 25, 2012, at 9:28 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:

<skip/>

>>>
>>>> PROPOSED: Our dataset syntax will have some standard mechanism
>>>> (to be determined within the next few weeks) through which a
>>>> Dataset serialization can include some RDF data about the
>>>> Dataset (that is, some metadata in the form of an RDF graph).
>>> +1, but note that AFAIKS this requires semantics which will be
>>> incompatible with some current use cases.
>>
>> Explain?
>
> OK, I will try again.
>
> People want to "label" a graph with a URI they are using to denote
> something else, eg a person. The same URI cannot denote two things at
> once. So the current proposal for a minimal semantics distinguishes
> the thing denoted from the graph "named", by having a GR-EXT function
> from things to graphs. But this means that when the URI is used in
> RDF, it denotes the something else, not the graph. So you don't get
> to use it in RDF metadata to refer to the graph. We could throw this
> semantics away, and say that the name really does denote the graph it
> "names", which has always made sense to me (and, apparently, to
> Peter, who is arguing the case right now), but then it can't also
> denote this other thing that people want it to denote, or perhaps
> better, want to have the freedom to make it denote.
>
> I can't help observing that this very basic point about URIs and
> naming has been bloody obvious since day one, and yet apparently this
> WG is STILL, after over a year, unable to gets its collective head
> around it.

This is really a mean attack against the people who are trying to design 
the semantics. And, on top of that, it is wrong.

The current proposal is not inconsistent with what Sandro wants. You can 
say:

{ <n> a sd:Graph;
     eg:hasSomeMetadataProp <x> . }
<n> {
   #some triples
}

Also, make it clear in the graph-metadata vocabulary that a sd:Graph is, 
say, a graph description. Oh, BTW, it already exists and it is on the 
verge of getting standardised. It's called SPARQL 1.1 Service description.

A quick look at the proposed semantics clearly shows that the example is 
consistent.

<skip/>
-- 
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/
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2012 07:24:37 GMT

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