- From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 13:55:05 +0100
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- CC: public-rdf-wg@w3.org

Peter, Infinity does not cause problems at all, on the contrary, that's why I'd like to allow dataset-interpretations to assign a "local" interpretation to an infinity of "graph names". Moreover, I'd like literals to be allowed as "graph names". The reason is the following. Imagine I want to extend this weak semantics to a temporal semantics. I'd like to say things like: "[1927,1945]"^^interval { :x a :Child .} "[1999,+\infinity]"^^interval { :x a :DeadPerson .} and I want to infer that at any given year <y> >= 1999 "[<y>,<y>]"^^interval { :x a :DeadPerson .} which requires that there exists an RDF/RDFS/etc-interpretation Con("[<y>,<y>]"^^interval) for any <y>. AZ Le 06/03/2012 19:31, Peter F. Patel-Schneider a écrit : > 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). > > 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 -- Antoine Zimmermann ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne 158 cours Fauriel 42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2 France Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 83 36 Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66 http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/

Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2012 12:55:18 UTC