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

Hmm.

Well putting something like this in a Note should have less changed of
causing damage, I guess.

But then I think that there should be some distance between any proposal in
any such note and the core of RDF.  I think that this distance can come
from defining a new entailment regime, perhaps called something like the
denoting-but-nothing-else-graph-name entailment regime.  However, there is
still no definition of how this entailment regime is supposed to work.

peter



On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:

>  On 09/26/2013 02:18 PM, Peter Patel-Schneider wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> We have two levels of specs, right?  There are the ones that are
> thoroughly reviewed and proven to be implentable, which we call
> Recommendations.  And other ones that we still think are useful, but not
> particularly reviewed or tested, which we can publish as Notes.   Remember
> LBase?
>
> Notes with normative content are a step up from W3C Submission, two steps
> up from a self-published spec, and three steps up from a blog post, but a
> big step down from a Recommendation.
>
> In terms of normativity, my understanding is it would only need to be in
> Concepts or Semantics, or normatively referred to from them, if
> implementing it was required in order to be a conformant RDF system
> (however that's defined in Concepts and Semantics -- that's another
> question).     And I don't think that's the case here -- we've decided you
> can have a conformant RDF system, with datasets, that uses only the
> semantics for Datasets as currently specified in RDF Concepts.
>
>       -- Sandro
>
>
>
>
>   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 anyone.
>
>
>
>>
>> If the WG passes on both of these, they can be handled later, except that
>> it'll be harder to shift the terminology.
>>
>>        -- Sandro
>>
>>
>>
>  peter
>
>
>
>