Re: [ALL] agenda telecon 14 Dec

Pat,

On 14 Dec 2011, at 01:40, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> [[
>> PROPOSAL: Close all graph model+semantics issues by accepting the RDF Datasets design [1] as the data model, and by adding no new semantics.
>> ]]
> 
> But that design refers to 'named graphs', which already introduces new semantics (that is, semantics which goes beyond that defined in the RDF specs.)

Isn't it a fallacy to think that because a symbol is called X, its formal meaning has to be what's implied by X?

“Blank node identifiers” exist in concrete syntaxes but do not occur at all in the formal semantics, much less “identify” anything.

The xsd:anyURI datatype is supported in RDF Semantics, and its value space is IRIs, but these IRIs don't “denote” or “identify” in the formal semantics. They simply are inert string values.

Same with “graph names”, they exist in the abstract syntax, but that doesn't mean they have to occur in the formal semantics. They're ways of grouping RDF triples together, that's all.

Research on adding formal semantics for named graphs can happen outside of this WG, and different approaches to that problem can compete in the marketplace.

> (I was under the continuing impression that there was a consensus that this solution was unacceptable.

No such consensus ever existed. What makes you think it did?

Best,
Richard




> 
> Pat
> 
>> Knowing who can't live with this minimalist approach would be a form of progress IMO.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Richard
>> 
>> 
>> [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#section-multigraph
>> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
> 40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 13:42:41 UTC