- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 18:16:01 -0400
- To: W3C RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
As we're talking about Dataset Semantics, I'm wondering who will implement reasoners that use them. I wonder this for two reasons. 1. We need folks to implement a spec, in order for a spec to become a W3C Recommendation [1]. If it doesn't get implemented, it gets stuck at Candidate Recommendation. If it's too tied to the other specs, they could all get stuck. (Fortunately, we can just label the dataset semantics text "at risk" in the spec so we can remove it, if necessary, and let the other specs proceed.) 2. Some folks might implement it mostly because they like to be feature complete (eg the Jena team, historically) but maybe some other folks will implement it because they want to use it for some application. I suggest these people should perhaps be given the strongest weight in the Dataset Semantics discussion, if they speak up. If the proposed semantics solve their problem, they're much more likely to implement-to-spec and be happy. For myself, at this point I'm 70% convinced that I can implement all the dataset use cases I understand (the ones I enumerated in the Federated Phonebook examples, plus SPARQL dump/restore) without any standard dataset semantics beyond having a standard place for metadata (eg the default graph in trig and the service description graph in SPARQL). -- Sandro [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#cfr
Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2012 22:16:06 UTC