W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > September 2013

Re: (proposal) was Re: defn of Named Graph

From: Peter Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:18:41 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMpDgVy5dR20NRKGSkeOWTm7GZQ5ugVbDrqhqKFLoohwXbmksw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:

>  On 09/26/2013 12:00 PM, Peter Patel-Schneider wrote:
>  Umm,  doesn't a lot of this have normative consequences?   If not, then
> is there any reason to have it?  If so, then both Concepts and Semantics
> will have to have changes to support it, and there has to be a design that
> the WG can vote on before proceeding.
> There's a conceptual part (that doesn't affect running code) and an
> optional part that would just be in a WG Note.
> The conceptual part is (1) telling people what a "Named Graph" is, and
> maybe (2) shifting the terminology around "RDF Graph".    My sense is this
> would clear up a lot of confusion, but perhaps I'm just arguing about
> angels on the head of a pin and this would cause more confusion.  I have no
> interest in pushing this if people are okay with the status quo.   We claim
> RDF Graphs are mathematical sets, but that doesn't seem to be how the real
> world works with them.   Does that matter?    *shrug*
> The optional part is one RDF class, with a standard name (eg
> rdf:NGDataset), which would allow people to indicate in a dataset that it
> has certain semantics (that seem obvious to me, and I think most people use
> without it being formally specified).   I also have no interest in pushing
> this, if no one needs that kind of interoperability.

How does this optional-but-normative semantics get specified?   I would
think that it would require wording in both Concepts and Semantics, not in
a WG note.

Or maybe you are proposing that there be an entailment regime for this.
However, if this is the case, then there is no need for the WG to specify
the entailment regime, as specifying entailment regimes can be done by

> If the WG passes on both of these, they can be handled later, except that
> it'll be harder to shift the terminology.
>        -- Sandro
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2013 18:19:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:32 UTC