- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 09:40:02 +0200
- To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Sep 13, 2012, at 20:13 , Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > peter > > PS: Here is a reiteration of the old proposals. > > There is no independent notion of interpretations of RDF datasets. If you want to do something like entailment between RDF datasets you can either look at one component of the dataset, so you ask whether the default graphs sit in an entailment relationship or ask whether the graphs with a particular name sit in an entailment relationship, or you can look at the entire dataset, so you ask whether the default graphs sit in an entailment relationship and all the similarly-named graphs sit in an entailment relationship. In each case you probably want to consider a missing named graph to be the empty graph. This ends up being more flexible and considerably simpler than the minimal semantics currently being proposed, as well as requiring no new reasoning machinery. > Isn't that the same as the question in http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs/Minimal-dataset-semantics#DD1:_Different_regime_for_default_graphs_and_named_graphs.3F (together with an additional term as in DD2) That was certainly an alternative that was discussed and the main reason why that road was not adopted was that the design would be more complex. I do not think there was any fundamental objection against this except for this complexity issue (which, to be clear, is an important argument!) Ivan ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Friday, 14 September 2012 07:40:25 UTC