- From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr>
- Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 15:47:15 +0100
- CC: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Le 08/03/2011 15:30, Ivan Herman a écrit : > I am not sure that we have to define an interpretation for a whole dataset, actually. Going one step forward (to Richard) I am not that we have to define the concept of a dataset at that level (which is of course useful for SPARQL). I would expect to define only a (id,G) tuple in some sense; what is the reason of going beyond that? The reason to go beyond that is that there will be triple stores, SPARQL endpoints etc, that will dump there dataset into files, exchange them with other systems, some of which will reason over that dataset. If there is absolutely no words about the semantics of datasets or quads, then one cannot expect any conclusion to occur from a foreign inference system using one's data. Without it, I could equally decide that a set of quads have to be interpreted as reified triples, which would lead all RDFS or OWL reasoners to no useful conclusions. Of course, it is possible to leave the semantics unspecified and let all implementations deal with it in their own ways, expecting that a de-facto standard behaviour will emerge. But what I am proposing is to define the most general and most permissive semantics so that any implementation would be /in fact/ an instantiation of it. It's my understanding that Richard would be glad to leave the definition of a formal semantics of datasets out of this WG, but he provided one because he knows very well that some people---like me---would like to see it defined (correct me if I'm wrong). Regards, AZ. > > Ivan > > On Mar 8, 2011, at 15:17 , Antoine Zimmermann wrote: > >> Richard, >> >> >> Good starting point. >> >> I am in favour of using the notion of dataset from SPARQL but I have a problem with the semantics. You say: >> >> "The interpretation of an RDF Dataset is that of the union of its constituent graphs." >> >> One of the strong reasons to keep information about provenance is to avoid spreading inconsistencies everywhere. Separating statements in distinct boxes should avoid knowledge from disjoint contexts to intertwine. >> >> Besides, in a semantic web search engine which index all RDF data on the web (like Sindice, SWSE) this is not acceptable. Neither Sindice nor SWSE implement the semantics you propose, which is unfortunate since you advocate following deployed application practices and those are among high-profile applications from your own institute. >> >> What you define is a semantics which maximises the "permeability" of contexts, that is, every triples defined in any graphs influence equally the knowledge from any other graph within a dataset. >> >> On the contrary, we could argue in favour of a semantics that minimises the permeability of contexts, that is, a triple in a graph can only have an impact on the knowledge of that graph. >> >> This can be formalised as follows: >> >> "The interpretation of an RDF Dataset (G, (id1,G1), ..., (idn,Gn)) is a tuple (I, I1, ..., In) where I is an RDF-interpretation of G and for all 1<= i<= n, Ii is an RDF-interpretation of Gi." >> >> This way, you prevent the knowledge of a graph from perturbing the knowledge of other graphs, thereby complying very well with heterogeneous and unreliable information from all over the Web. >> >> Unfortunately, this is not ideal because it is often desired that knowledge actually "flows" across contexts. There are several proposed formalisms that lie in between the two extremes defined above (viz., maximal and minimal permeability) but this is not the goal of this WG to choose or define one. However, it would be good if the semantics of datasets was as generic and permissive as possible, such that extensions of it can constrain it further (just like the semantics of RDF is itself very permissive but further constrained by RDFS, OWL, SWRL, etc). In this sense, the "minimal permeability" semantics is the most permissive. To constrain it, it suffices to add vocabularies that specify the way knowledge from graphs interact. For instance: >> >> :G1 ex:imports :G2 . >> >> could be a way to ensure that the interpretation of :G1 has to satisfy both :G1 and :G2. If all graphs import each others, then an interpretation of a dataset becomes equivalent to an RDF-interpretation of the union of its constituent graphs, which is exactly the "maximal permeability" semantics that you defined. >> >> The reasoning formalisms used by Sindice or SWSE (and certainly other triple stores with reasoning capabilities) would fit well with this approach. Annotated RDF(S) would also work as a semantic extension of this generic approach (with appropriate vocabularies). >> >> I'll put this proposal somewhere on the wiki with more technical details. >> >> >> Regards, >> AZ. >> >> >> >> Le 08/03/2011 12:29, Richard Cyganiak a écrit : >>> All, >>> >>> I wrote up a proposal for addressing the [Graphs] work item: >>> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs/RDF-Datasets-Proposal >>> >>> The gist is to simply lift the definition of RDF Datasets from SPARQL into RDF Concepts. >>> >>> I believe that this is the simplest thing we could possibly do in order to fulfill the work item from the charter, and addresses the use cases that were brought forward. >>> >>> This is intended as a starting point for discussion. In particular I'd like to see: >>> >>> - arguments that this doesn't address (or poorly addresses) the use cases >>> - arguments that this doesn't meet the charter requirements >>> - improvements to the proposal that would help to better address the use cases >>> - counter-proposals in a similar style >>> >>> Best, >>> Richard >> >> >> -- >> Antoine Zimmermann >> Researcher at: >> Laboratoire d'InfoRmatique en Image et Systèmes d'information >> Database Group >> 7 Avenue Jean Capelle >> 69621 Villeurbanne Cedex >> France >> Lecturer at: >> Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Lyon >> 20 Avenue Albert Einstein >> 69621 Villeurbanne Cedex >> France >> antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr >> http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/ >> > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html > FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf > > > > > -- Antoine Zimmermann Researcher at: Laboratoire d'InfoRmatique en Image et Systèmes d'information Database Group 7 Avenue Jean Capelle 69621 Villeurbanne Cedex France Lecturer at: Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Lyon 20 Avenue Albert Einstein 69621 Villeurbanne Cedex France antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2011 14:47:49 UTC