Re: modest proposal for entailment

On 09/28/2012 05:19 AM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
> Wasn't the proposal made in the telecon good enough?
> For me, this proposal is the absolute minimal requirement that I have.

I don't see any problem with this proposal, but it would be helpful to 
be able to explain what it's good for.   Since you said the magic word 
("requirement"), I'm going to ask you for at least one use case that 
motivates this.

        -- Sandro


>
> The way I imagined this being explained in the spec is approximately 
> as follows:
>
> """
> The Working Group is not providing a formal semantics for RDF 
> Datasets, but agrees that the notion of entailment must satisfy the 
> following requirement:
>  a dataset (DG,NGs) dataset-entails a dataset (DG',NGs') if:
>   - DG entails DG';
>   - for all <n,g'> in NGs', there is a pair <n,g> in NGs such that g 
> entails g'.
> See [NOTE] for examples of formal semantics that satisfy this.
> """
>
> Then we write a WG note to provide possible formal definitions of 
> dataset semantics.
>
>
> Le 28/09/2012 01:19, Pat Hayes a écrit :
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>