Re: ISSUE-97: propose to close the issue by doing nothing

On Nov 6, 2012, at 12:42 PM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:

> Re. ISSUE-97: Should the semantics of RDF graphs be dependent on a vocabulary?
> 
> 
> I suggest we close it and do nothing.

I agree. I was keen on this idea for a while, until I started to go into the details of the effects it would have. Thanks for hewing a similar path.

Pat

> 
> 
> The implications of the change would be important.
> If such a thing was done, all reasoners would have to be reimplemented, because the change adds a lot of entailments inferred from the empty graph.
> 
> Nonetheless, I made a wiki page where I put the formal definitions of simple-entailment, lv-entailment, rdf-entailment, rdfs-entailment and D-entailment when these notions are made independent from a vocabulary.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/User:Azimmerm/RDF-semantics
> 
> 
> Best,
> -- 
> 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 66 03
> Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66
> http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
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 November 2012 20:12:03 UTC