- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:34:24 -0400
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>, "public-rdf-wg@w3.org Group WG" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Datasets don't have interpretations in this particular view. To reiterate, only RDF graphs have interpretations. Entailment between them is as usual. Entailments between RDF datasets, if one wants to have them, can be defined in terms of entailments between the graphs in them. peter On 09/18/2012 04:23 PM, Ivan Herman wrote: > So... is there a model for the dataset? What is it? > > Ivan > > --- > Ivan Herman > Tel:+31 641044153 > http://www.ivan-herman.net > > (Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...) > > > > On 18 Sep 2012, at 22:14, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 09/18/2012 03:48 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: >>> On Sep 18, 2012, at 7:33 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: >>> >>>> Peter, >>>> >>>> still trying to understand, bear with me. >>>> >>>> RDF entailment is described in terms of I-s, so I try to translate what you describe in terms of those; this would allow me to compare with the original proposal. What you seem to say that a model for a Dataset (G, <n1,G1>,...,<nk,Gk>) is a (I0,I1,...,Ik) so that I0 satisfies G, and Ii satisfies Gi. Ie, the models for each element of the dataset are mutually 'independent' from one another. >>> I don't think that was what Peter was suggesting. (Was it??) >> Correct, this is not what I was suggesting. >> >> >> peter >>
Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2012 20:35:03 UTC