- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 18:18:43 +0100
- To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 11 Sep 2012, at 13:11, Antoine Zimmermann wrote: > ISSUE-84: "Bug" in D-entailment with literals in non-canonical form Okay, but this is at best a bug in RDF Semantics and orthogonal to dataset semantics. > DD1. You say: > > """Under OWL dataset semantics: > > {} > :g1 { :o1 owl:differentFrom :o1 } > > is a contradiction.""" > > No, it's OWL-dataset-consistent, but it entails: > > :g1 { G } > > for any RDF graph G. Right, my bad. I've removed the DD1 test cases, as they don't illustrate the issue at hand particularly well anyway. > DD3. We can mention the SPARQL 1.1 Service description vocabulary, and give an example using it: > > <> a sd:Dataset; > sd:defaultEntailmentRegime er:rdf > sd:namedGraph [ > a sd:NamedGraph; > sd:name "http://example.com/g"^^xsd:anyURI; > sd:entailmentRegime er:simple > ] > > > This does not work perfectly since sd:defaultEntailmentRegime normally apply to a sd:Service rather than a sd:Dataset. Yet, it is not formally said that sd:Dataset is disjoint with sd:Service. I added this example to DD3. Best, Richard > > > DD4 to DD7: alright. > > > > --AZ > > Le 11/09/2012 11:46, Richard Cyganiak a écrit : >> On 10 Sep 2012, at 17:30, Richard Cyganiak wrote: >>> Two other things that I'd quite like to see before we can call the proposal complete: >>> >>> 1. Some thinking on how it addresses our graph use cases. (Do we have an “official” list of those? I've lost track with all the various documents.) >>> >>> 2. Some examples for semantic extensions, in order to show that various other proposed semantics can actually be done as proper semantic extensions of this minimal dataset semantics. >> >> I've worked a bit on this item and made attempts to formalize three semantic extensions: >> >> * owl:imports (formally explains how owl:imports works in RDF datasets) >> * web datasets (formally defines that stuff published on the web is asserted) >> * direct graph semantics (permits "literal" immutable graphs) >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs/Minimal-dataset-semantics#Possible_Semantic_Extensions >> >> I'm not proposing that we should standardize any of this; the intention is merely to explore how flexible/extensible the semantics proposed on that page is. >> >> Again, I'm not really good at this formal semantics stuff, so this might all be spectacularly wrong. >> >> Best, >> Richard >> > > > -- > 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 Tuesday, 11 September 2012 17:19:12 UTC