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

Re: three kinds of dataset

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 13:34:53 -0600
Cc: antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <0A77B964-25F7-49D4-A26C-706A00E65D5E@ihmc.us>
To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Just for clarification, all I really wanted was to have a definition of satisfaction which preserves the standard definition of entailment as perserving truth in interpretations. Both Peter's and my earlier suggested modification (now in the wiki) do this. I think mine is simpler, but whatever. The only real difference is the possibility of allowing infinite contexts. 


On Mar 6, 2012, at 12:31 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

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

Its an interpretation of the vocabulary, not of the graph. The vocabulary of a dataset is all the URIs that occur in the dataset.

> In any case, the two formulations appear to be quite close (modulo the
> issue just above).
> peter
> From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
> 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
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs-UC#.28B_priority.29_Reasoning_over_annotations).
>> 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

IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2012 19:35:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:12 UTC