- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 20:11:41 +0000
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Hi Sandro, On 19 Dec 2011, at 05:35, 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.) Is there some factual evidence that the formal semantics actually contributes towards this goal of merging knowledge? If the formal semantics were relegated to an informative background document, and replaced with a different normative document whose purpose is merely to define entailment rules between RDF graphs, how would you see this hampering the merging of knowledge? All the best, Richard
Received on Monday, 19 December 2011 20:12:20 UTC