Re: "options" -- an enumeration of the "graphs" design space

On Oct 11, 2011, at 8:46 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:

> I wont be able to do my ACTION-95 as scheduled tomorrow ("Present after
> Richard, F2F2 day 1, about where we might need more than his proposal
> gives us") because I failed to connect with Richard and learn what his
> proposal is and/or understand it sufficiently from the emails sent to
> the group.
> 
> One thing I prepared instead, which I could present then, is a
> rough-draft survey of the options in this space:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs/Options
> 
> FWIW, the semantics I like are 3.1.2 and 3.3.4.   I think 3.3.4 is the
> clear winner in terms of simplicity

I see it as a black tar-pit with no bottom. Just try stating the actual intended semantics of 'log:semantics' as an RDF property. Bear in mind that the notation { ....} has to have a determinate meaning which will also work with the owl:sameAs property. 

> , but I don't see how to align it
> with SPARQL very well.  Given SPARQL, I move toward 3.1.2.   3.1.1 is
> also pretty nice.    I'm dubious about all the others.

I dont even know what the 3.2 versions mean. What is this notion of "naming in a context"? 

I presume that the 3.1 "global" versions require that the URI used as a graph name is not also being used as the name of something else, right? (If not, can you explain what "global" means?) Doesnt that fly in the face of a decision we have already taken about the fourth field in a quad store? 

Pat


> 
>     -- Sandro
> 
> 
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
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, 12 October 2011 06:32:56 UTC