- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:48:01 -0400
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- CC: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>, "public-rdf-wg@w3.org Group WG" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
I'm not convinced that there is any need to restrict properties like sendCorrectionsTo to datasets. peter On 09/19/2012 09:40 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote: > On 09/19/2012 09:13 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >> What do you think that the minimal semantics will get you? >> > > I'm kind of in the crossfire here. I'm not arguing for the minimal > semantics. I'm happy with no semantics/any semantics, as long as I can do > my sendCorrectionsTo example (quoted below). In my implementation work in > the spring I came to the conclusion that all I need to implement all the > GRAPHS use cases that I understood was the ability to define predicates like > that. > >> So far, I've heard only one thing. If g1 and g2 denote the same thing, >> then their graphs, if any, are put together (in essence). However, you >> can't do much of that kind of inference in RDF, so I don't think that there >> is much gain here. >> >> In the example below, it seems to me that you can proceed exactly the same >> with the minimal dataset semantics, with no semantics at all, and with the >> entailment-only semantics. >> > > You're probably right. There are just semantic bits in defining > sendCorrectionsTo that I'm kind of confused about, like whether it makes > sense to define an RDF property that only has meaning when it's used in a > dataset. That's a little weird; maybe there's a better way to define it? > > -- Sandro > >> peter >> >> >> On 09/18/2012 07:22 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote: >>> So, elsewhere you're proposing we not have dataset semantics. I think >>> I'm okay with that, if I can still do what I'm trying to do here. >>> What I'm not entirely clear on is how I can do this without any semantics.... >>> >>> On 09/18/2012 02:10 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Here's a much better example, because it stays away from Web stuff: >>>>> >>>>> <g1> eg:sendCorrectionsTo <mailto:sandro@w3.org>. >>>>> <g1> { w3c:group35462 rdfs:label "SPARQL Working Group" }. >>>>> <g2> eg:sendCorrectionsTo <mailto:ivan@w3.org>. >>>>> <g2> { w3c:group44350 rdfs:label "RDFa Working Group" }. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There's an obvious meaning to the predicate eg:sendCorrectionsTo, but >>>>> how do I express that meaning? Something like: >>>>> >>>>> X eg:sendCorrectionsTo Y >>>>> >>>>> Note: only meaningful inside a dataset which has a named graph with >>>>> the name X. >>>>> >>>>> Meaning: Y is a good email address for sending corrections to the >>>>> information in the named graph X. >>>>> >>>>> Are you comfortable with that? >>>> >>>> I don't know if comfortable is the right word. I don't have problems >>>> with anyone wanting to do that. >>> >>> My question is really: do you think that definition/documentation means >>> what I want it to and will work the way I want it to, if the RDF WG >>> doesn't give Datasets any semantics? >>> >>> That is, if the WG doesn't say anything about graph-name URIs connecting >>> to URIs as used in the default graph, can I just spell all that out (as >>> above) in the documentation of my predicate? >>> >>> And if I can't, then what alternative do I have for sharing this kind of >>> information structure? >>> >>>> I can see that if this is the stance that someone wants to take with >>>> respect to named graphs, then one might want to have the relationship >>>> between IRIs and graphs work the way it works in the minimal semantics. >>>> >>>> However, I don't think that everyone wants to have this connection. >>> >>> What I'm asking for is an extremely weak connection; it's hard for me to >>> see how it would do any harm, since it would only come into play when >>> someone ask for it. >>> >>> -- Sandro >>> >> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 13:48:34 UTC