W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-star@w3.org > December 2021

Multi-set like graphs [was: Re: RDF-star use cases from Amazon Neptune]

From: thomas lörtsch <tl@rat.io>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2021 12:32:48 +0100
Cc: public-rdf-star@w3.org
Message-Id: <A825B279-56C9-4702-814E-83B4744B9EBB@rat.io>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>

> Am 05.12.2021 um 02:46 schrieb Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>:
> Although RDF is in some sense a logic, this is not really relevant to the discussion here.
> There is no requirement that a logic be based on sets (or set-like graphs) instead of multi-sets (or multi-set-like graphs).

Out of curiosity but also because it might help to better understand the underlying issues (or monsters lurking beneath the carpet):

Surely logics based on multi-sets have been developed sometimes or even are deployed today. What is the experience there?
Have there ever been attempts/proposals to base RDF on a multi-set graphs?

What would it involve, how much would it probably complicate things if one tried to not only apply multi-set semantics patches for corner cases but re-design the system from the ground up? I’m aware that this probbaly is a crazy proposition, but I’d still like to better understand.


> SPARQL and SPARQL* do not use the logic of RDF.  They have no more semantic commitment than retrieval from property graphs.
> peter
>> On 12/3/21 6:31 AM, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
>>> I think that presenting this feature of RDF as a "restriction" is unfair, and misses the point. In my view, the impedance mismatch between RDF and PGs is not due to some arbitrary restriction on the RDF model. It is due to the fact that RDF is a logic, that can be represented as a graph, while PG is a graph data model, without any semantic commitment.
Received on Tuesday, 7 December 2021 11:33:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 7 December 2021 11:33:03 UTC