Re: Making progress on graphs

On Sun, 2012-05-13 at 15:20 -0400, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
> On 05/13/2012 02:15 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> > On Sun, 2012-05-13 at 13:36 -0400, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> >> The syntax part of Sandro's document appears mostly fine to me.
> > Great.
> >
> >> However, there is quite a bit more to Sandro's document than there is to
> >> Richard's proposal.  I'm not in favour of the semantics and
> > As long as an RDF graph has truth conditions, I think a Dataset also has
> > to have truth conditions.   Do you agree with that?
> No, and I have so stated in the past.

I suppose you have, yes.   Can you explain why RDF should have formal
semantics?   (I think this is the same as saying, "... should have truth
conditions"; if I'm wrong about that, please correct me.)

   -- Sandro

> > I'm trying to get the use cases/example fleshed out enough that we can
> > see whether/how it breaks if we change/remove the dataset truth
> > conditions.  I'm not there yet.
> >
> >>   folding sections.
> > Yeah, I'll be curious to hear where people fall on this one.  It strikes
> > me at the kind of thing that some people will really want, and some
> > people will find silly and useless.   My own inclination is to err on
> > the side of us doing it, so we can do it pretty well, rather than having
> > everyone who thinks they need it re-inventing it.
> >
> I see this as reification, alts, etc., all over again.
> 
> >> Given that union dataset and merge dataset don't appear anywhere in the
> >> document besides their definitions, I'm not sure what good they are.
> > Yeah -- I have something else in mind to say about them, but if that
> > doesn't get said, then I agree that text doesn't really belong.
> >
> >     - Sandro
> >
> >> peter
> >>
> 
> 
> [...]
> 
>

Received on Sunday, 13 May 2012 20:26:08 UTC