Re: RDF* and conjectures

> On 21. Sep 2021, at 19:08, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> The more appropriate text for RDF-star is probably that in
> "RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax"
> 
> 1.6 Working with Multiple RDF Graphs
> https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#managing-graphs
> 
> and the definition:
> 
> 4. RDF Datasets
> https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-dataset
> 
> which has the note:
> 
> """
> Despite the use of the word “name” in “named graph”, the graph name is not required to denote the graph. It is merely syntactically paired with the graph. RDF does not place any formal restrictions on what resource the graph name may denote, nor on the relationship between that resource and the graph.
> """

The failure of the RDF 1.1 WG to standardize a named graphs semantics is well known and the very reason for this soul searching expedition into the semantics of SPARQL as a normative practical force. 

As a co-editor of SPARQL 1.0 and 1.1 and a participant in the RDF 1.1 WG (and co-editor of TriG as I just noticed) and probably numerous other RDF-related standardization efforts you should be in a formidable position to shed some light on the question which model theoretic semantics might best describe the semantics of SPARQL. 

You might also comment on if the RDF 1.1 WG discussed standardizing a model theoretic semantics as close as possible to the operational semantics of SPARQL, if that was deemed impossible for technical or "political" (read: conflicts with vendor interests) reasons. 

These are just two ideas of how you could help flatten the knowledge differences in this CG.

Thomas


> 
>    Andy
>

Received on Wednesday, 22 September 2021 21:47:44 UTC