Re: Toward easier RDF: a proposal

On 27/11/2018 08:47, Pat Hayes wrote:
> Well, they might be able to draw conclusions and perform processing which goes
> beyond the rather elementary semantics, perhaps making assumptions which cannot
> be encoded directly in RDF itself (such as various closed-world assumptions
> about uniqueness of naming or completeness of data) but this is not incompatible
> with the official semantics, and may indeed rely on it in some ways. The notion
> of semantic extension is designed to allow for this kind of external
> non-RDF-sanctioned processing of RDF data. But I do not know of any examples of
> such processing which /denies/or contravenes the RDF semantics. Do you?

I'm not sure if this counts as an example...

I fell foul of this in some software I was working on circa early 2000's:  in 
that case, I noticed in time and adjusted my designs accordingly, but the 
experience showed me that being aware of RDF semantics can be important if data 
merging on a scope wider than the immediate application is to be meaningful.

It's a long time ago, and I forget the details, but it was to do with modeling 
and implementing network devices and access controls.  I do remember that my 
initial design (unintentionally) involved non-monotonicity - adding a triple 
could make an expression True that was previously False.


Received on Tuesday, 27 November 2018 10:10:59 UTC