Re: ISSUE-30: How does SPARQL's notion of RDF dataset relate our notion of multiple graphs?

On 17 April 2011 10:14, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> And... let us not use 'inference' as some sort of a dirty word. The RDF Semantics will tell me such trivially-looking-thing like the meaning of rdfs:subpropertyOf. If one looks at the RDF(S) entailment rules in the document, they all are, in fact, fairly trivial, but a specification must specify those somewhere. Whether a specific program just codes in that simple rule for subporpertyOf (and I am sure that happens all over the place!) or employs a full inference engine for the whole of the RDF Semantics is, in this sense, besides the point...

Yes. Information expressed in RDF is horribly sparse, unpredictably
shaped, and draws on an awkward patchwork of evolving schemas defined
by parties who don't talk to each other as often or as carefully as
they might. A bit of inference here and there is one of several
techniques that can be used to smooth over those data gaps, and I
despair when I read practical RDF enthusiasts talking as if such
techniques are akin to attempting to create full AI. The ability to
add in data that wasn't explicitly stated (especially to infer
numerical identity) is an essential tool to help deal with the chaos
of Web-scale RDF data. This needn't mean we always deduce everything
at each point in processing, just that we have clear rules written
down to underpin the process when it is needed. Indulging in
them-and-us-ism that contrasts practical, developer-friendly linked
data RDF against pie-in-the-sky ivory tower inference-obsessed
eggheaded academics won't help us get our job done any faster, or help
us appreciate what everyone has to offer here.

cheers,

Dan

Received on Sunday, 17 April 2011 08:57:50 UTC