W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > March 2012

Signal for semantic extensions

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 18:18:57 -0400
To: public-rdf-comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1333145937.2181.94872.camel@dbooth-laptop>
-------- Forwarded Message --------
From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>, Jeni Tennison
<jeni@jenitennison.com>, www-tag@w3.org List <www-tag@w3.org>
Subject: Re: The TAG Member's Guide to ISSUE-57 Discussion - F2F reading
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 18:17:06 -0400

Hi Pat,

On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 14:24 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
> FWIW, I am willing to work actively (on- or off-list) with anyone who
> wants to try reconciling any proposal with the RDF semantics, or just
> to explore any semantic issues. This is particularly timely as the
> RDF2 WG is right now debating issues which impinge on the RDF
> semantics framework, so it would be good to get any pending issues or
> problems out into the open. 

I would suggest that the RDF WG look at Part 3 "Determining Resource
Identity" of "Resource Identity and Semantic Extensions: Making Sense of
That section proposes a standard process for determining resource
identity.  As far as I know, I did not invent this process.  I simply
documented what seemed to be the general ideas floating around. 

However, I did identify one specific gap in the RDF specs:
At present there is a minor gap in the RDF standards, in that there is
no standard way for an RDF processor to recognize that a particular URI
is intended to signal an opaque semantic extension: the knowledge of
which URIs are intended to signal opaque semantic extensions must be
externally supplied to the RDF processor.  The RDF processor must
magically know about them in advance.  It cannot alert the user to the
need for a new opaque semantic extension that was previously unknown.
This gap could be addressed by defining a standard predicate, such as
rdf2:requires, to explicitly indicate when a particular semantic
extension is required.  However, since it currently seems unlikely that
many semantic extensions will be needed that cannot be defined using
standard inference rules, this does not seem like a major gap.

I will forward this message separately to the RDF comments list, since I
cannot post to the regular RDF list.

David Booth, Ph.D.

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
Received on Friday, 30 March 2012 22:19:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:59:30 UTC