W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2014

Re: Should information be merged from several RDF files?

From: Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 21:13:21 +0300
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-Id: <3631811404756801@web16h.yandex.ru>
Sorry, my example was wrong as a :tranformer may have more than one :script-data.

However a transformer can't have more than one precedence, and multiple precedences may arrive if we merge several RDF files.

So, anyway I consider stupid merging several RDF files wrong (or hard to implement properly).

07.07.2014, 20:12, "Victor Porton" <porton@narod.ru>:
> Finally now I think that I should consider incomplete data in an RDF file as erroneous (and ignore it), even when combined from several files it becomes complete. Below there is an example that, generally, combining several RDF files may lead to a nonsense.
>
> An example supporting this behavior:
>
> # In one RDF file
> <http://example.org/example-transformation>
> šššššššša :transformer ;
> šššššššš:source-namespace <http://example.org/ns1> ;
> šššššššš:target-namespace <http://example.org/ns2> ;
> šššššššš:precedence <#macro> ;
> šššššššš:script-data [
> šššššššššššššššša :xslt ;
> šššššššššššššššš:script-url <http://example.org/scripts/foo.xslt> ;
> šššššššššššššššš:transformer-kind :entire ;
> ššššššššššššššššcompleteness 0.9 ;
> ššššššššššššššššstability 0.9 ;
> ššššššššššššššššpreference 0.9
> šššššššš] .
>
> # In the second RDF file
> <http://example.org/example-transformation>
> šššššššša :transformer ;
> šššššššš:source-namespace <http://example.org/ns1> ;
> šššššššš:target-namespace <http://example.org/ns2> ;
> šššššššš:precedence <#macro> ;
> šššššššš:script-data [
> šššššššššššššššša :xslt ;
> šššššššššššššššš:script-url <http://example.org/scripts/bar.xslt> ;
> šššššššššššššššš:transformer-kind :entire ;
> ššššššššššššššššcompleteness 0.9 ;
> ššššššššššššššššstability 0.9 ;
> ššššššššššššššššpreference 0.9
> šššššššš] .
>
> This would make both foo.xslt and bar.xslt associated with http://example.org/example-transformation but this is a nonsense. With a transformation only one :script-data can be associated.
>
> So if we follow open world assumption, after downloading the first RDF it would be OK, but after downloading also the second RDF it would become an error. One thing it's bad for, is that this would complicate program logic (as we would need to remove an already filled data structure which contains info about http://example.org/example-transformation).
>
> To make my program logic non-contradictory, I probably should ignore later loaded data about http://example.org/example-transformation if it was already extracted from an RDF loaded earlier.
>
> It seems that open world assumption makes my program logic contradictory!
>
> 06.07.2014, 18:02, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>:
>> šOn Jul 5, 2014, at 10:07 AM, Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru> wrote:
>>> ššI work on this project:
>>> ššhttp://freesoft.portonvictor.org/namespaces.xml
>>>
>>> ššIt involves downloading RDF files from the Web.
>>>
>>> ššWhen a "bundle" (for lack of a better word), that is a set of related RDF triples
>> šI really do not know what you mean by 'related' or 'bundle'. Neither of these terms make RDF sense.
>>> šš, is incomplete it should be ignored.
>> šThat is a very odd rule to use when dealing with RDF. It is a basic aspect of the RDF design that information from various sources can be combined, and that no single source should be assumed to be complete (the 'open world' assumption). So you are using RDF here in a way which, while not formally incorrect, does violate the design presumptions of RDF.
>>> ššMy question, if a bundle is split into several different RDF files, and each part of it is incomplete, should it nevertheless not be ignored if the union of all parts of the bundle is complete?
>> šI would say, clearly no. Which illustrates why this 'ignore' rule is troublesome.
>>
>> šPat Hayes
>>> ššA toy example (A, B1, B2, C be namespaces):
>>>
>>> ššIn one file:
>>>
>>> šš<A> <B1> <C> .
>>>
>>> ššIn an other file:
>>>
>>> šš<A> <B2> <C> .
>>>
>>> ššIf both B1 and B2 properties are required, should this information be ignored (as incomplete bundles)? or should the information from the two files be merged and thus considered complete?
>>>
>>> šš--
>>> ššVictor Porton - http://portonvictor.org
>> š------------------------------------------------------------
>> šIHMC šššššššššššššššššššššššššššššššššššš(850)434 8903 home
>> š40 South Alcaniz St. ššššššššššš(850)202 4416 ššoffice
>> šPensacola ššššššššššššššššššššššššššš(850)202 4440 ššfax
>> šFL 32502 ššššššššššššššššššššššššššššš(850)291 0667 ššmobile (preferred)
>> šphayes@ihmc.us ššššššhttp://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
> --
> Victor Porton - http://portonvictor.org

--
Victor Porton - http://portonvictor.org
Received on Monday, 7 July 2014 18:13:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:52 UTC