- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 18:19:03 -0500
- To: W3C RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
As promised at the telecon, an outline of the even more minimal proposal. Rather than attempt to define entailment for an entire dataset (which, however we do it, will involve some decisions about the semantic relationships between the various graphs), we can retain one key aspect of Antoine's idea by defining a named graph entailment, which is extremely simple: <N, G> name-entails <N', G'> just when N=N' and G entails G'. This extends to any entailment regime, eg we can distinguish name-RDFS-entailment and name-OWL-entailment, etc., in the obvious way, for any entailment regime on RDF graphs. This has the merit of providing the 'preserve the context' notion of entailment that Antoine has pointed out is useful in some use cases of datasets, and it allows people to define relationships between datasets (including the "minimal" entailment patterns) in terms of either graph or named-graph entailments between the various graphs in the dataset. And this can be done in the revision of the RDF semantics document in a few paragraphs, without impacting existing ideas at all. So unless there are any serious objections, I propose to define this in the revision of the RDF Semantics. Pat ------------------------------------------------------------ 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, 27 September 2012 23:19:35 UTC