- From: Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 17:19:36 -0700
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: "public-rdf-comments@w3.org Comments" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <F6F0E064-91B9-43CA-B2F2-8EE45BA6543B@syapse.com>
On Sep 11, 2013, at 8:14 PM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote: > On 09/11/2013 06:21 PM, Jeremy J Carroll wrote: >> >> This section defines a vocabulary item rdf:Graph in addition to those in [RDF-SCHEMA]. >> This is the class of resources that are RDF graphs. If a resource in this class is identified by an IRI, and that IRI is used to name a graph in a dataset, then within that dataset the resource SHOULD correspond to the named graph. > > Does it not follow from this definition that: > > PREFIX : <http://example.org/#> > PREFIX rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> > :g1 :p 1. > :g1 a rdf:Graph. > :g2 a rdf:Graph. > GRAPH :g1 { :a :b :c } > GRAPH :g2 { :a :b :c } > entails: > :g2 :p 1. > > (assuming the "SHOULD" is taken as something we can count on) ? Hi Sandro this is an excellent question, and one that I takes motivates your discussion of box-model on the WG mailing list. I am not very comfortable with a YES, but, given the text I suggested a YES it would be. In essence I think I want an intensional semantics rather than an extensional semantics, suggested text below; I start with philosophical discussion. In maths, we typically refer to Sets with intensional semantics, in RDF we refer to classes with extensional semantics. So if I have a class jjc:Friends rdf:type rdfs:Class ; rdfs:comment "Jeremy's friends" . and also a class jjc:SandrosFriends rdfs:type rdfs:Class ; rdfs:comment "Sandro's friends" . in the unlikely event that we have exactly the same friends, RDF semantics does not confuse the intent. A view would be that RDF Semantics achieves this by moving the semantic intent more to the property rdf:type … So, we could scrub the idea of having a class, and instead define a property. An alternative proposed modification, which clarifies my desired NO to your entailment [[ 3.7 The rdf:namesGraph property This section defines a vocabulary item rdf:namesGraph in addition to those in [RDF-SCHEMA]. rdf:namesGraph is an instance of rdf:Property that is used to state that a resource is a name for a graph. A triple of the form: R rdf:namesGraph G states that G is an RDF graph and R is a name for the graph G. If R is an IRI, and that IRI is used to name a graph in a dataset, then within that dataset the resource G SHOULD correspond to the named graph. The rdfs:domain of rdf:namesGraph is rdfs:Resource. No rdfs:range is specified. ]] === With this my particular use case to add metadata about the graph as an intensional as opposed to an extensional object would be addressed as follows. PREFIX : <http://example.org/#> PREFIX rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> GRAPH :g1 { :g1 rdf:namesGraph _:g ; rdfs:comment "An example graph" } Jeremy J Carroll Principal Architect Syapse, Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2013 00:20:09 UTC