Re: complete vs partial graph semantics

On Apr 12, 2012, at 8:09 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:

> I'm having a lot of trouble understanding the motivation for
> partial-graph semantics.   It seems to me like a kind-of-cool but
way-too-complicated idea.

OK, let me motivate it by providing a different intuition. You have been consistently thinking of the graph label as being an actual name for the graph (the one it is next to in the TriG document, that is), or at any rate for some graph or other which is closely related to the graph. That is, the graph name denotes a graph.  But going back to the intuitions built into Antoine's semantics, it is more natural there to think of the label as identifying not the graph itself, but a context within which to interpret the graph; and then, it is both natural and semantically valid to infer the merge of two graphs with the same label. 

I think that this may be a fundamental split between two intuitions about what the graph "name" really names, and that this split may be irreconcileable; and the test case is

<u> { <a> <b> <c> }
<u> { <d> <e> <f> }

are consistent and together entail ??

<u> ( <a> <b> <c>
           <d> <e> <f> }

A: No when <u> names the graph, yes when it names some kind of larger interpretation context. 


Received on Thursday, 12 April 2012 19:53:09 UTC