Re: (Meta) Re: n-quads & Turtle Levels

[moved off of the RDF WG list, included Richard and www-archive@]

Ivan,

I'm a little surprised to hear you say this -- the W3C process [1] is 
very explicit that objections are a (perhaps *the*) key part of 
determining consensus, and in the face of a lack of consensus 
understanding the strength of the objections is how Chairs ought to 
evaluate competing proposals. Isn't it helpful than to evaluate current 
proposals to know as early as possible which ones would generate strong 
objections?

Lee

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#Consensus

On 6/8/2012 9:56 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> This is a meta-comment, not especially directed at this mail, just triggered by it: can we try to be careful about the usage of the term 'object', 'formal objections', etc, at this stage of the discussion? This term has a very strong meaning in the W3C process, a recorded formal objection is such that, if it is maintained in spite of the resolutions of a working group, escalates up to the Director for final arbitration, etc. Its usage has already created unnecessary confusion (and adverse reactions) on the discussions before and we should try to avoid making the current deliberations even more difficult...
>
> Thanks
>
> Ivan
>
>
> On Jun 8, 2012, at 01:51 , Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>
>> Hi Sandro,
>>
>>>> I've heard you say two mutually incompatible things:
>>>>
>>>> 1. A Turtle file published at<i>  containing graph G is an RDF dataset with only named graph<i,G>
>>>>
>>>> 2. A Turtle file published at<i>  containing graph G is an RDF dataset with only a default graph
>>>>
>>>> Which one is it? It can't be both.
>>> If I said (1), it was a mistake.
>>>
>>> I would rephrase (1) as a conditional:
>>>
>>>   A.  If it is true that a turtle file serializing G is what is
>>> published at<i>,
>>>   B.  Then the dataset consisting of the named graph<i,G>  is true.
>> -1.
>>
>> We can postulate the existence of a *specific* dataset, let's call it the “web dataset”, and can say that under the condition above the g-pair<i,G>  is true in the web dataset. (Formally, this could be done as a semantic extension, let's call it W-entailment (for web). So if A is true then *every* dataset W-entails the g-pair<i,G>.)
>>
>> But I will formally object to anything that defines truth *in general* in terms of dereferencing. This is not a negotiable position.
>>
>>> Statement (2) is close to correct, but I'd change it slightly; it's not
>>> that it "is" a dataset, but that it can reasonably be read as a dataset.
>>> It's a type-conversion thing.  A triple can be seen as a (trivial)
>>> graph; a character can be seen as a (trivial) string; a graph can be
>>> seen as a (trivial) dataset.
>> This is sloppy thinking. They are not the same, and by pretending that they are, you are just confusing matters.
>>
>>> In practice, I see this manifesting in the kinds of APIs one uses for
>>> loading and manipulating dataset.  Can give the API a graph when it is
>>> expecting a dataset and have it silently promote the graph to being a
>>> dataset with that graph as its default graph?
>> The much more interesting case is the opposite situation: What happens when you give a dataset to an API that expects a graph? That's after all the status quo; anyone who goes to the web to load a Turtle file expects a graph, and that's how it's been implemented for the last eight years. If we now define that a Turtle parser must also be able to handle datasets, we've deeply broken every existing implementation.
>>
>>> Alternative, we could define a class of things that is the union of the
>>> class of graphs and the class of datasets -- that would be more crisp
>>> and might be as convenient.    But I expect people will be find just
>>> using datasets as those things.
>> I don't see the point of this. If we define truth for datasets, and consider the default graph as asserted, then an RDF graph is semantically equivalent to an RDF dataset with just a default graph and no empty graphs. That's all we need. But they are not the same.
>>
>> Best,
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
>>> To be clear: this is speculative.   My point is not to say we should
>>> standardize this, but I don't think we should rule it out.
>>>
>>>   -- Sandro
>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Richard
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>