Re: get rid of the semantics for RDF?

On 12/19/2011 12:35 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-12-17 at 12:51 -0500, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> On 12/17/11 12:21 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>> That is why we are stuck. This situation cannot be resolved simply by letting it all hang out. We could simply declare that RDF has no semantics, and is simply to be used by programmers to mess around with in ways they find handy. Really, this might be the best way to move forward. But until we do this, we have to take the semantics seriously.
>>
>> +1
>
> The promise of the formal semantics of RDF, I think, is that we'll be
> able to merge knowledge.
>
> If I say something, using decontextualized true statements, and you do
> the same, using the same vocabulary, then someone can just merge the
> graphs to have the aggregate knowledge of both of us.   That's pretty
> cool.   (I wish it worked more often, ... but I have some faith the
> situation is improving.)

I think this is great, and I hope the situation continues improving. But 
in the meantime, I really hope whatever we do for the formal semantics 
of named graphs (or whatever it ends up being called) doesn't impinge on 
the ability for programmers to mess around with them in the ways they 
find handy. In RDF to date, I'm confident that this is the case (for the 
most part), which is great, and I hope we keep it that way.

Lee

>
>      -- Sandro
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 19 December 2011 06:02:16 UTC