Re: proposed second reply to Jeremy's comment about named graphs

Le 12/09/2013 02:43, Pat Hayes a écrit :
> I like this. Is it a good idea to also refer to the notes that Sandro and Pierre-Antoine are supposed to be writing?

Not Pierre-Antoine. Antoine. If I manage to have a relatively final 
version by the end of this week, then I'd say yes, please refer to it.

There are possible ways of interpreting RDF datasets that suit very 
important use cases and that are in strong conflict with what Jeremy 
requires.


AZ

  Just to show we havnt stopped worrying about it, you understand.
>
> Pat
>
> On Sep 11, 2013, at 1:28 PM, Peter Patel-Schneider wrote:
>
>>
>> Dear Jeremy:
>>
>> This is a second official response to your comment about named graphs in
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Jul/0021.html and
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Sep/0005.html
>>
>>
>> The RDF Working Group believes that there are several ways in which RDF
>> graphs and datasets are and will be used.  These include ways that fit into
>> your use cases, where the graph names denote the graph they name or some
>> other formal graph-related construct and where you would indeed say
>> something like
>>
>> jjc:graph {
>>    jjc:graph dc:creator "Jeremy J. Carroll" .
>> }
>>
>> However, there are also ways that do not fit into your use cases, for
>> example where the graph names are IRIs that denote some other entity, such
>> as
>>
>> jjc:jjc {
>>    jjc:jjc rdf:type foaf:Person .
>>    jjc:jjc foaf:lastName "Carroll" .
>>    jjc:jjc foaf:knows jjc:pfps .
>> }
>>
>> If the RDF semantics required that all graph names denote graph-related
>> constructs this would interfere with these other use cases.  Therefore the RDF
>> Working Group decided to not so require.
>>
>> Further the RDF Working Group was unable to agree on even a weak theory of
>> named RDF graphs, such as one conditioned on explicit typing.  Even the
>> nature of what graph names might denote was problematic: does the name of an
>> RDF graph denote the graph itself, does it denote some other construct that
>> is related to the graph, or does it even denote the semantic meaning of the
>> graph?
>>
>> Therefore the working group has produced a very minimal specification for
>> RDF datasets and named graphs that does not depend on denotation.
>>
>> This approach produces maximally compatability, but does not produce
>> inferences that might be desirable in some use cases.  If you do want
>> certain inferences to be part of your approach, such as the first example
>> above entailing
>>    jjc:graph rdf:type jjc:Graph.
>> you can define and implement a particular RDF entailment regime that
>> sanctions these inferences.
>>
>> The RDF Working Group believes that this minimal approach will allow
>> different approaches to named graphs to coexist some allowing what you want
>> and others incompatible with what you want.  The flourishing approaches can
>> then be considered for standardization at a later time.
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 home
> 40 South Alcaniz St.            (850)202 4416   office
> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile (preferred)
> phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Antoine Zimmermann
ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol
École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne
158 cours Fauriel
42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2
France
Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03
Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66
http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/

Received on Thursday, 12 September 2013 06:14:09 UTC