There's another, rather radical approach you may like to consider to the formal semantics of RDF.
A practical example is at
The general case goes like this:
1. Regard any collection of RDF as a set of triples representing ground facts
2. Allow stratified, range restricted datalog rules with negation-as-failure for reasoning over the ground facts, and
3. Use the model theoretic semantics of [1,2] to specify what *should* be derivable from a collection of triples and rules.
There's some motivation for the approach in [3,4].
What do you think about this approach? Does it for example miss assigning a useful semantics to an important real world use-case?
 Towards a theory of declarative knowledge,
in J. Minker, ed., Foundations of Deductive Databases, pp 89-148, (Morgan
Kaufmann, Washington, 1988).
 Backchain Iteration: Towards a Practical Inference Method that is Simple Enough to be Proved Terminating, Sound and Complete. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 11:1-22
PO Box 1412
CT 06011-1412 USA
Phone: USA 860 583 9677
Cell: USA 860 830 2085
Fax: USA 860 314 1029
At 10:55 AM 6/16/2005 -0400, Hardgrave, Terry \(Contractor\) wrote:
My suggestion is that you base the formal semantics of RDF on
the work of Chris Strachey, Dana Scott, etc. -- i.e. on "denotational semantics" and set theory--
rather than on model-theory/graph-theory. The primary reason is that graph theory
will not (easily) support Boolean query languages on the structures. To support the semantics
of Boolean query languages, you need to use set-theory directly.
Chris Strachey developed something based on triples years ago, but I have not been able to
find the reference to it. I would need to ask some of my colleagues to hunt it down.
Here is one reference. If you are interested in pursuing this further, please let me know, and
I will provide additional references.