W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > August 2012

Re: Minimal dataset semantics

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:43:19 +0100
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C4DEE509-8435-450F-94FB-0BD48F835826@cyganiak.de>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
On 23 Aug 2012, at 19:02, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>> b) to define a minimal version of a "truth-based"/"entailment-based" semantics (where [[ :i1 { G } ]] entails [[ :i1 { G' } ]] if graph G entails graph G').
> Which means that the "name" refers to the entailment closure of the graph, rather than the graph itself. Right? 

I'm not sure what you mean by "refers to".

Regarding the formal mechanism of associating IRIs with their respective graphs, I've started to like the idea that Alan mentioned the other day: Dataset interpretations contain a mapping from resources to graphs, called the graph extension. This mapping associates graphs with (some) resources. A name-graph-pair (a.k.a. abstract named graph) <i,G> satisfies a dataset interpretation I if the graph extension in I of I(i) entails G.

If I'm not messing up, then this mechanism works the same as the property extension and class extension mechanisms that already exist in RDF Semantics.

So, the graph IRI then *denotes* a resource (one that is in the domain of the class extension function). And in the abstract syntax, the graph IRI is "associated" or "paired" with a certain RDF graph. I don't know if one can say that the IRI "refers to" the entailment closure of the graph.

Does this make any sense?

Received on Thursday, 23 August 2012 19:43:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:19 UTC