- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:46:13 -0400
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 09/20/2012 12:00 PM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
>>
>> Huh? If the meaning of a named graph is tied up with relating names to
>> graphs, then the semantics certainly has a role there.
>
> Sorry, maybe I misunderstood what you were saying, but then I don't
> understand your point.
>
> What I'm saying is that, if you find a dataset somewhere in the wild,
> or if you have a dataset in memory, you can get the graph associated
> with a graph IRI by simply parsing the dataset representation.
> Semantics does not come into play in that case.
I don't see how that can work, exactly.
You also said, stating the basic idea behind entailment:
> The goal, the way I see it, is to define a semantics that satisfies
> the requirements that we all agree on, such that if a conclusion is
> drawn from a dataset by applying the semantics, no one would object to
> that conclusion.
I like that idea. Each module takes in some RDF (graphs or datasets),
does good stuff to it (never violating the semantics), and then passes
more RDF onward. As long as what came in was true, and the semantics
were properly designed, what goes out will be true.
But if what came in was a harvester dataset, where the named graphs
contain exactly the triples parsed from the content obtained via Web
dereferencing, then even with your most minimal semantics, the dataset
coming out may well be full of falsehoods.
(In other words, can you tell me again how ds-entailment works in a
world where we sometimes want quoting semantics?)
-- Sandro
Received on Friday, 21 September 2012 13:46:20 UTC