- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:39:15 -0400
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 09/18/2012 12:26 PM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
> Le 18/09/2012 15:27, Peter F. Patel-Schneider a écrit :
>>
>
[...]
>
>
> Would you be able to address your own requirements and my own requirements
> with a mathematically sound and complete proposal that defines a notion of
> dataset interpretation?
>
> I summarise your requirements as: entailment can be performed completely
> separately between named graphs and default graphs, and nothing can make a
> dataset inconsistent.
> My requirements are summarised as followed: if G E-entails G' according to
> a RDF graph entailment regime E, then:
>
> { G } E-dataset-entails { G' }
>
> and for all IRIs n:
>
> <n> { G } E-dataset-entails <n> { G' }
>
> ?
>
> I can see solutions for this, but they are not elegant at all.
>
I agree, which is why I'm not in favour of providing RDF-style interpretations
for datasets at all.
On the other hand, it is perfectly find to talk about entailments between the
graphs in an RDF dataset, and one can if one wants define entailments between
RDF datasets themselves without providing interpretations for RDF datasets at all.
peter
Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2012 16:39:47 UTC