W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > February 2019

Re: Slides for Berlin Data Workshop

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 13:15:53 -0800
Cc: public-linked-json@w3.org
Message-Id: <49DA7E5A-DA81-4EC3-9660-A18626472662@greggkellogg.net>
To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
I’ve updated the presentation in response to some of your comments.

Gregg Kellogg

> On Feb 26, 2019, at 1:49 AM, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr> wrote:
> Hello,
> This is my first email to the JSON-LD CG mailing list, so let me introduce myself: I am Antoine, working on semantic web technologies since 2004 as a researcher. I participated in the RDF 1.1 working group, quite actively, where my primary interest was RDF semantics.
> Concerning your slides, Gregg, on slide 2, you say "The only reasonable interpretation of graphs named via blank node (...) is that the blank node denotes the graph it names".
> Graph names can be interpreted in many ways, lots of which are considered reasonable by those who advocate them.
> In fact, the very people who introduced the concept of named graphs (Carroll et al. in 2004) defined a formal semantics according to which an RDF interpretation I satisfies ("conforms to", in their words) a named graph (n,g) iff I(n) = (n,g), that is, the name is interpreted as the named graph *pair*, not the graph.
> Many people have used the idea of quads (that can be seen as a syntactic variation of the concept of named graphs) in very different ways, some of which are implemented in triple stores (e.g., spatio-temporal triple store Strabon).
> In any case, defining the meaning of a JSON-LD document is not part of the JSON-LD group's mission. JSON-LD defines how to map a JSON-based format to the abstract RDF structures, then people interpret it as they want, possibly following other specs like RDF Semantics, OWL, SWRL, or N3logic.
> Similarly, slide 5 is not about "Reasoning in JSON-LD": it is explaining how to map N3 formulas to JSON-LD. Then people can decide to interpret JSON-LD documents as N3, following slide 5 representation, and do *N3 reasoning*, not "JSON-LD reasoning". They could also just map this representation to a normal RDF dataset and apply other kinds of reasoning.
> Best,
> --AZ
> Le 23/02/2019 à 23:50, Gregg Kellogg a écrit :
>> The format for the Berlin Data Workshop [1] remains unclear, but I’ve prepared just a couple of slides to describe one way in which Anonymous Named Graphs in JSON-LD could support the property graph use case.
>>> https://json-ld.org/presentations/JSON-LD-Support-for-Property-Graphs/ <https://json-ld.org/presentations/JSON-LD-Support-for-Property-Graphs/>
>> There’s a short overview of new things in JSON-LD 1.1, and as a bonus, a sketch of how Notation3 reasoning might look in JSON-LD. (Hint, we really only need to invent a way to describe universal variables at the syntax level; reasoning should be universal based on obvious projections from Notation 3. The required extensions to RDF Datasets and better description of reasoning semantics are work to be done elsewhere).
>> Gregg Kellogg
>> gregg@greggkellogg.net
>> [1] https://www.w3.org/Data/events/data-ws-2019/schedule.html
> -- 
> Antoine Zimmermann
> Institut Henri Fayol
> École des Mines de Saint-Étienne
> 158 cours Fauriel
> CS 62362
> 42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2
> France
> Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03
> Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66
> http://www.emse.fr/~zimmermann/
> Member of team Connected Intelligence, Laboratoire Hubert Curien
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2019 21:16:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:52 UTC