- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 18:32:40 -0500
- To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Whoops. But its good that we both agree, I guess.
Pat
On Sep 20, 2012, at 10:01 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2012 23:33:11 UTC