- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2025 09:40:22 -0400
- To: semantic-web@w3.org
On 10/2/25 04:58, Thomas Lörtsch wrote: > . . . I think the WG would be well advised to tackle the graph > perspective >now, and adjust its approach to reification. +1 > . . . > "The RDF Working Group did not define a formal semantics for a multiple graph data model . . . . Therefore, the Working Group discussed the possibility to define several semantics, among which an implementation could choose, and provide the means to declare which semantics is adopted. But semantics should be always declared by the *data* itself -- not by each implementation. That's why I suggested: > Or perhaps the semantics of each named graph could be declared > explicitly, on a per-named-graph basis: > > :myNamedGraph1 :hasSemantics :X . > :myNamedGraph2 :hasSemantics :Y . > :myNamedGraph3 :hasSemantics :Z . > > where :X, :Y and :Z are URIs that signify the most commonly used named > graph semantics, and :hasSemantics is a standardized predicate for > indicating named graph semantics. If the semantics of each named graph were declared explicitly, it would at least give the possibility that data from sources that use different named graph semantics could be merged with correct semantics, even if it would be an engineering challenge. > As Dan suggests, we do have a lot of experience now. +1 Thanks, David Booth
Received on Thursday, 2 October 2025 13:40:27 UTC