Re: life without dataset semantics

On 09/19/2012 10:58 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> On 09/19/2012 10:32 AM, David Wood wrote:
>> On Sep 19, 2012, at 10:06, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" 
>> <> wrote:
>>> On 09/19/2012 10:02 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>>> On 09/19/2012 09:48 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>>>> I'm not convinced that there is any need to restrict properties 
>>>>> like sendCorrectionsTo to datasets.
>>>> How else could you define/document it?     In writing the property 
>>>> documentation, I find myself needing some way to talk about those 
>>>> intended triples (the ones containing the information that the 
>>>> corrections are about).  Without a dataset or some global relation 
>>>> underlying dataset semantics, I don't know how to do that.
>>>>     -- Sandro
>>> You could just say that it is a relation between the name/location 
>>> of a graph and something else.  in a dataset it would be the named 
>>> graph in that dataset (or not).  Elsewhere it would refer to the 
>>> graph at a location.
>> Sandro, are you looking for a URI that you can use as the rdfs:range 
>> for the property sendCorrectionsTo?
> That might be useful, but it's not my focus.  I'm just thinking about 
> a one-paragraph or one-page explanation of the sendCorrectionsTo 
> predicate.   How could you explain to all the people who might use 
> this predicate what exactly it means.   These are folks who are 
> releasing data feeds from government agencies, research labs, etc, 
> etc, and the folks writing software which uses those feeds.   They 
> need to all have the same picture in their heads, more of less, of wh  
> (This was what I proposed in [1].)at 

Sorry, errant mouse click.   Ignore the bit in parens.

      - s

> sendCorrectionsTo means, in both the common cases and the corner cases.
> I think if the RDF WG lays the right groundwork -- and we've very very 
> close -- then other people can easily define,  document, and begin 
> using sendCorrectionsTo and a few dozen other very interesting and 
> very useful predicates.  (We might also take a stab at some of them in 
> a WG Note.)   If we don't lay the right groundwork, I'm not sure what 
> will happen.
> The right groundwork certainly includes a simple definition of 
> datasets and some terminology around them (maybe the stuff from SPARQL 
> is fine).   It should also help people make sense of situations like 
> the predicate being used outside of a dataset, or in a named graph in 
> a dataset vs the default graph.     Frankly, I can't quite yet make 
> sense of those corner cases, with this zero-semantics approach.  They 
> do make sense to me, however, if there's some kind of global relation 
> between things denoted by graph names and the graphs, so that's the 
> sort of thing I keep leaning towards.
>     -- Sandro
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>> peter

Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 15:01:31 UTC