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

Re: dataset semantics being connected to the state of the web

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:57:57 -0400
Message-ID: <4FD1F6D5.6060307@gmail.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
CC: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
If the only interpretations are those that support <i,G> if dereferencing I 
produces G, then, yes, <i,G> will be a consequence of anything (and nothing).  
Of course, this would mean that entailment changes whenever the web changes.

I do not believe that this is a desirable feature to put in RDF.


On 06/08/2012 08:28 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 10:51 +0200, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>> Hi Sandro,
>>>> I've heard you say two mutually incompatible things:
>>>> 1. A Turtle file published at<i>  containing graph G is an RDF dataset with only named graph<i,G>
>>>> 2. A Turtle file published at<i>  containing graph G is an RDF dataset with only a default graph
>>>> Which one is it? It can't be both.
>>> If I said (1), it was a mistake.
>>> I would rephrase (1) as a conditional:
>>>    A.  If it is true that a turtle file serializing G is what is
>>> published at<i>,
>>>    B.  Then the dataset consisting of the named graph<i,G>  is true.
>> -1.
>> We can postulate the existence of a *specific* dataset, let's call it
>> the “web dataset”, and can say that under the condition above the
>> g-pair<i,G>  is true in the web dataset.
> Yes.     I'm not sure that's the most useful framing, but it's quite
> reasonable.
>> (Formally, this could be done
>> as a semantic extension, let's call it W-entailment (for web). So if A
>> is true then *every* dataset W-entails the g-pair<i,G>.)
> The logicians can correct me, but that seems to me like a non-standard
> way to use entailment.  Whether one statement entails another is
> something that can be determined purely by looking at the two statements
> and understanding the logic of the language they are written in.
> Entailment isn't about what statements happen to be true of the domain
> of discourse.
Received on Friday, 8 June 2012 12:58:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:18 UTC