- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:01:20 -0400
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 09/20/2012 10:48 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>
> Suppose we simply say that {G, N} ds-entails {G' N'} exactly when: G entails G' and for all <n, g'> in N' there is a <n, g> in N with g entails g'. (Same n, note.) This covers the three conditions above, and it does not imply ds-entailment simply from inconsistency of the default graph alone. (This relies on the idea that a missing graph is understood to be the empty graph, but I think we all assume this, right?)
>
> This kind of finesses the task of giving a model theory for datasets, so its not exactly a dataset semantics, but it might be enough for our purposes. It is monotonic in the usual senses, eg adding graphs to a dataset does not block any entailments. We could describe it as a constraint on any stronger (and genuine model-theoretic) semantics.
>
> Comments?
>
> Pat
>
>
>
Sounds rather familiar.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Sep/0151.html
peter
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2012 15:01:59 UTC