Re: Sandro's proposal VS RDF Datasets

On 29/04/12 10:47, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
> Le 29/04/2012 03:25, Pat Hayes a écrit :
>> But we can take your view, as I understand it. It is simply a
>> rejection of the very idea of datasets having any normative semantics
>> or meaning. They are just handy datastructures for doing various
>> things with pieces of RDF. Which is fine, and saves us a lot of WG
>> effort, but hasnt really advanced the state of the art very far, and
>> may not really be living up to our charter.
> My view has always been that we define a normative semantics for RDF
> Datasets, and I proposed one more than a year ago. It's fairly simple:
> you just apply the RDF semantics to each graph separately and what you
> get is an entailed dataset. It's nothing special or strange or hard to
> get accepted: it's already implemented in some triple stores.
> Yes, it may be little in advancing the state of the art, but it gives a
> good ground to define notions such as imports, temporal reasoning,
> trust-based reasoning and various other things.
> It's perfectly in line with what we have to do according to our charter.
> The way things are going on in this WG tends to suggest that there will
> not be any formal semantics for RDF Datasets as there are too much
> disagreement on what it should be. I have the impression that it is the
> only viable, but disappointing alternative.

With these simple dataset semantics, are any of the other proposals 
ruled out, or are they all compatible as additions to your dataset 

(I think the answer is that nothing is blocked but I want to check)


[1] Dataset semantics. 

Received on Sunday, 29 April 2012 19:20:54 UTC