Re: ISSUE-28 (was: Re: Draft agenda / final one in a few hours late)

On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 13:19 +0100, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> Pat,
> 
> On 23 May 2012, at 02:02, Pat Hayes wrote:
> > My votes on proposed resolutoins for issues 5, 29, 30 and 33 are +1, and my vote on the resolution for issue-28 is +1, provided that the WG accepts that this resolution has the consequence that we MUST give a semantics to datasets which ensures that the name of a named graph actually does denote the graph, in the 2004 Semantics sense of "denote". Without this acceptance, I formally vote against this resolution for issue 28. 
> 
> Let me propose a different wording for the ISSUE-28 resolution then:
> 
> [[
> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-28 ("Do we need syntactic nesting of graphs (g-texts) as in N3?"), saying No, we do not -- the use cases presented to the WG can be addressed without, and making syntactic nesting pay off would require additional logic machinery that's beyond this WG's scope.
> ]]
> 
> The point being that nesting may be a great enabler for things like N3 rules or your RDF Surfaces proposal, but are not really worth it unless we also get N3's @forall or your negative surfaces, and I think it's clear that this WG cannot do that. So no need to complicate our current job by writing nested graphs into the standard now.

+1

I would be hesitant, thinking there are probably use cases that we
haven't considered, but it seems clear to me datasets with nesting can
be reversibly rewritten in a standard way into datasets without nesting.

The open questions to me are:
 (1) will we standardize on such a rewriting or leave it to
applications;
 (2) if we do, then which design for such rewriting will we take; and
 (3) can it be done with reasonable efficiency.

There's some proposed text in my draft, but after writing it, I decided
I was too far out on a limb and that I needed to implement it, which is
mostly what I've been doing the past week.  (But I don't have anything
to show for it yet.)

There is some danger that the rewriting gives us another abomination
like RDF reification or lists.  I don't think so, but I'm not entirely
convinced yet.

    -- Sandro


> Richard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > Pat
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On May 22, 2012, at 11:08 AM, Guus Schreiber wrote:
> > 
> >> All,
> >> 
> >> There is draft agenda containing the left overs from last week:
> >> 
> >>   http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.05.23
> >> 
> >> but I will update this with a few more items later today.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Guus
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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 Wednesday, 23 May 2012 12:50:10 UTC