Re: Agenda for 19 Sep 2012

My participation this week is at risk.

I cast my vote AGAINST:

PROPOSED: Editors should integrate the "Minimal Semantics" design and included 
test cases into Working Drafts and the Test Suite, with the understanding that 
this is the approach we will use unless serious problems emerge. Any specific 
issues people have with this design should be RAISE'd soon.

As indicated multiple times in the past, I am in favour of a weaker semantics 
for RDF datasets either no semantics at all or maybe something like.
1/ No change to the semantics for RDF graphs.
2/ Entailment between RDF datasets  D1=<G1,N1> and D2=<G2,N2> is defined as
     a) G1 entails G2
     b) for each <n,g> in N2 there is some <n,g'> in N2 such that g' entails g,
                                   or if there is no such <n,g'> then the 
empty RDF graph entails g
I could also live with a semantics that eliminated this last disjunct.

My reasons for preferring a weaker semantics are that I don't want to have 
certain uses for RDF datasets ruled out by a particular semantics at this 
time, when no one know just how RDF datasets will be used.   One kind of use 
that I am thinking of is just using RDF datasets to record multiple graphs, 
which no commitment to any interchange of information between the named graphs 
or between the default graph and the named graphs or even any commitment to 
having the names being formally related to the graphs.


On 09/17/2012 12:36 PM, David Wood wrote:
> Hi all,
> Updates to the agenda:
> - Provenance Constraints agendum added.
> - Changed graphs proposal wording.
> Regards,
> Dave

Received on Monday, 17 September 2012 18:03:16 UTC