- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:09:39 -0600
- To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- Cc: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>, Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
On Dec 14, 2011, at 9:57 AM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote: > The idea of having an agreed formal semantics is to be sure that no matter where and when the graph is, what you can conclude from it is the same. > With a semantics based on URI resolution, it becomes dependent on who, where and when a user agent is when trying to make conclusions. You go offline and the graph changes its meaning. You're behind a proxy or haven't enough rights and you change the meaning... > > We can propose this as a best practice (the graph URI /SHOULD/ be used to denote the RESTful etc...) but hardly a rule in the formal semantics. No, really, we can make a formal semantics which takes into account URI resolution. Of course it will refer to whatever is resolved, so will be indeterminate in that sense, but it can still be enough to usefully (and nontrivially) constrain the possible meanings. We have done this for owl:imports, for example. One can rephrase http-range-14 in formal semantic terms, with a great increase in clarity, I might add. If I might add a meta-comment, it would be useful if the members of the WG were to say what they want the semantics to do, and let the editors tell them what is or is not possible. Pat > > Le 14/12/2011 00:29, David Wood a écrit : >> Hi all, >> >> I had a lengthy conversation with TimBL about named graphs at the LEDP Workshop [1] last week. Briefly, he feels that the semantics for named graphs should work like this: >> >> - An RDF Graph is named via a URI. >> - The URI denotes the RESTful Representation that is returned when the URI is resolved. >> >> That is, the URI denotes the graph's contents, not the graph Resource itself. >> >> How do Peter and Pat feel about that? >> >> TimBL: Please let us know if I misrepresented your position. >> >> Separately, Elsevier representatives Brad Allen and Alan Yagoda informed me that by "named graphs" they mean an RDF Graph that is referenced by a URI. Resolution of that URI returns the graph contents (a g-text) via RESTful interaction. That would seem to be in line with TimBL's preference. >> >> Regards, >> Dave >> >> >> >> >> On Dec 13, 2011, at 15:54, Guus Schreiber wrote: >> >>> All, >>> >>> It is quiet on the mailing list. The main thing we seem to be in limbo about is the GRAPHS debate. I suggest we devote the meeting to this theme. I have included in the agenda some discussion topics that came up in recent telecons, plus the email of Andy on TriG examples. I suggest we also have a meta-discussion on what our options are for getting consensus. >>> >>> The agenda is at: >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.12.14 >>> >>> Hope to speak to many of you tomorrow. >>> Guus >>> >> >> >> > > -- > Antoine Zimmermann > ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol > École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne > 158 cours Fauriel > 42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2 > France > Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03 > Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66 > http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/ > > ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 21:10:17 UTC