Re: RDF based messaging, negotiating, and dataset semantics

On Jul 9, 2017 4:44 PM, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:


On Jul 9, 2017, at 1:24 AM, Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote:

>> URIs which denote RDF graphs

Surely the issue is whether the URI denotes a *static* rdf graph.


There is no such thing as a dynamic RDF graph. An RDF graph is defined to
be a (mathematical) *set* of RDF triples, so is ‘static’ by definition.


Hmm.

It is true by definition that there can be no such thing as a (dynamic (RDF
graph)), but it is possible that there could be such a thing as a ((Dynamic
RDF) graph) and that some semantics of such graphs could be chosen that
allows for mapping a momentary slice of a graph into an RDF graph, and for
mapping an RDF graph,  an "instant", and  possibly a dynamic RDF graph
name(?)  into a Dynamic RDF graph slice. Any identifiers  in the mapped-to
RDF graph might have to be temporary qualified.

Choosing such a semantics obviously would  require care. A minimal
semantics might not allow for any inferences to be drawn between
"instants"; a relatively simple extension might allow for inferences to be
made that hold for (e.g.) contiguous intervals during which the mapped-to
RDF graph is unchanged ( lazy solutions to the frame problem).