entailment on sets of RDF graphs (union vs merge semantics)

One way to move forward on the union vs merge front is to not define
entailment for sets of RDF graphs.   If one has a set of RDF graphs,
then one has to first either union or merge them.

There would need to be changes in several places in RDF Semantics.  I
don't think that these changes would be substantive (but they might be
substantial).  No changes should be needed in any other document,
which shows just how much importance this issue has.   (Yes, I've
checked RDF Concepts, which is the only place where there might have
been required changes.)

I'm willing to go through and document the changes required, and
determine whether there is any substantive change required, *provided
that the interested parties agree that this change is an acceptable
solution to the issue*.


I hereby state that I agree that removing entailment for sets of RDF
graphs is an acceptable solution to the issue.


Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Nuance Communications

Received on Wednesday, 19 June 2013 16:27:19 UTC