Re: three kinds of dataset

Well, I don't see where the infinity causes problems.  RDF datasets and
RDF graphs are going to be finite, after all, aren't they?  Perhaps for
mathematical cleanliness you might want to allow interpretations to have
an infinite number of names, I suppose.

The wiki seems to be missing the notion that Con(V) is an interpretation
of the graph with name V.

In any case, the two formulations appear to be quite close (modulo the
issue just above).


From: Antoine Zimmermann <>
Subject: Re: three kinds of dataset
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 19:10:36 +0100

> Why not indeed?  This was my original idea, modulo a little improper
> formulation (you can see the previous version in the wiki) but 1) Pat
> was very much against this formulation, and 2) the current formulation
> allows a dataset-interpretation to assign a "local" interpretation to a
> potentially infinite set of terms. This is particularly useful for
> reasoning with annotated triples (UC 6.2 in
> Le 06/03/2012 18:52, Peter F. Patel-Schneider a écrit :
>> Why not just say that an RDF/RDFS/... dataset interpretation of
>>  D = (G, {<n1,G1>, ...,<nk,Gk>})
>> is a structure
>>  I = (I, {<m1,I1>, ...,<mh,Ih>})
>> where I is an RDF/RDFS/... interpretation of G
>> and for each 1<=i<=k there is a j, 1<=j<=h such that mj=ni
>> and Ij is an RDF/RDFS/... interpretation of Gi
>> (could also require ni distinct and h=k)
>> Then D = (G, {<n1,G1>, ...,<nk,Gk>})
>> entails D' = (G', {<n'1,G'1>, ...,<n'k',G'k'>})
>> just when every RDF/RDFS/... datatset interpretation of D
>> is also an RDF/RDFS/... datatset interpretation of G'
>> peter

Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2012 18:32:28 UTC