Re: different Semantics proposals (Re: Agenda for 19 Sep 2012)

On 09/18/2012 12:26 PM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
[...]

> At the moment, I'm convinced there are many private ways of doing things, 
> but I don't think there are many exchange of datasets between systems, such 
> that the need for a sanctioned semantics have been limited. But we see a 
> number of use cases that are either happening right now, or that are going 
> to appear inevitably, which requires a common understanding of what dataset 
> semantics is.
>
> Of course, we want the least common denominator such that as many current 
> practices as possible are conforming.
>
> But we may also make bold decisions that prevent what we consider bad 
> practices, even if it breaks some implementations.
>
>
> -AZ
>

I agree in general with this reasoning, but come up with a different end point.

If systems are storing RDF datasets, and exchanging them (even if not 
globally), and have a very limited (or even null) theory of the interaction 
between the default graph and the named graphs, then we should be very careful 
in breaking this form of interaction.  This would be another rationale for not 
having information bleed from the default graph into the named graphs.

Any bold decisions then have to have convincing rationale.   There has to be 
something very useful that comes from the boldness and there can't be much 
broken that isn't totally unredeemable.

peter

Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2012 16:47:31 UTC