- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 01:32:19 -0500
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: public-rdf-wg <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
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