- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 10:10:33 +0000
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, semantic-web@w3.org
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. #g
Received on Tuesday, 27 November 2018 10:10:59 UTC