Re: Q: ISSUE-41 bNode semantics

I used smileys, I argued, I indirectly replied to your bizarre question; but to no avail, you kept asking to the limit of a personal attack.
Please tell me where you did get the impression that I have no clue about RDF semantics. I probably am one of the most rigid formal person in this community. I so much know it, that I wrote a paper shortly after (2005, [1]) on how to make it even more formal and related to other formalisms; I even gave an invited talk at the most important database theory conference on RDF and databases in 2006 [2].
I replied several times to your argument that my proposal is non conforming to RDF, but apparently your belief about me not understanding anything about RDF led you to not even read carefully what I was saying :-)

[1] Logical Reconstruction of normative RDF. Proc. of the Workshosp on OWL Experiences and Directions (OWLED 2005), Galway, Ireland, November 2005. <>.

[2] Invited talk the 25th ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS-2006) on the Logic of RDF. <>.

On 20 May 2011, at 16:52, Richard Cyganiak wrote:

> On 20 May 2011, at 14:12, Enrico Franconi wrote:
>> I guess you haven't realised that doing personal attacks rather than scientific discussions doesn't lead anywhere -- or at least from my point of view.
> Look, Enrico. From your communication on this list, I get the impression that you have not read RDF Semantics. That is not unusual -- many people here haven't, and to the best of my knowledge NO ONE here has read the SQL spec. That's why I asked and offered a walkthrough. You said you don't need that because you were in the SPARQL WG. That's a non sequitur. Many members of the SPARQL WG have not read it either. I did not intend this question as a personal attack, and if you took it as one then I have spoken poorly. However I explicitly question whether one can make statements about the formal correctness and completeness of RDB-to-RDF mappings without being aware of the model-theoretic semantics of RDF.
> There is an allegation that your proposal is non conforming to RDF, with a specific and precise technical argument. Your proposal will not go anywhere if you do not find a way of responding to such arguments.
> Best,
> Richard

Received on Friday, 20 May 2011 15:15:22 UTC