Re: Are you planning to use the Dataset Semantics?

On 25/09/12 23:16, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>
> 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.)

As currently formulated, I see the semantics as helpful guidance in good 
data model design, not as executable machinery.

Your point of there needing to be some degree of isolation to reduce 
risk is a good point.

(I can not speak for "Jena" - it's a collection and we have not got an 
agreed position, where "we" is the committers or the committers+users)

> 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.

It will be interstign to see what "good practice" arises on top of any 
basic datasets semantics.

> 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 Wednesday, 26 September 2012 13:37:26 UTC