W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > September 2013

Re: defn of Named Graph

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 14:38:03 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFfrAFrQxgPbDJMsPB9v1DEV5i8miD7=fPLvhEZ9Zsw3GqE5+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>, Gregg Reynolds <dev@mobileink.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On 24 September 2013 14:31, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
> On 09/20/2013 04:44 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 19, 2013, at 9:52 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>
>>> ....
>>> So, I hereby propose we give up on all this until after we solve the
>>> change-over-time problem for RDF.
>>
>> ....
>>
>> Well, I do have other things to do in my life
>
>
> Sorry....     Hopefully you at least find this satisfying, enjoyable, or
> entertaining from time to time.
>
>
>> , but I think this is a very bad stance to take. The
>> change-over-time-problem is not ever going to be "solved". it is not a
>> problem with a solution. If it were, there would be one accepted tense logic
>> and one accepted semantic theory for programming languages.
>
>
> To me, it would be "solved" if there was a way to handle change-over-time
> that worked for my applications and that you didn't think was "broken" wrt
> RDF Semantics.    Hopefully other members of the community would like it,
> too. I don't think we need the perfect solution, or even consensus at this
> point.   Just something that some of us can use in our software with some
> reasonable hope it'll function as expected, and not violate the specs in any
> problematic way.
>
>
>>   But this type/token business does not require us to solve it. It is a
>> much simpler, more basic kind of clarification that does not depend in ANY
>> WAY on the change-over-time issue. With the greatest respect, Sandro, your
>> obsession with time and change has, I believe, hindered progress here. You
>> keep going back to that issue, even when we have finally managed to agree
>> (at least I thought we had) that the surface/token/named-graph vs. abstract
>> graph distinction did not depend upon time or change, or even involve it.
>>
>
> I come back to it obsessively because there is such a dirth of other use
> cases.  (Perhaps I have a bias of wanting to solved for other uses cases;
> I'm trying hard to keep that in check.)      In recent weeks, I tried to
> keep this discussion to being just about identity without touching on
> change-over-time, but frankly I don't find the use cases compelling.
>
> I'm now confident that you and I (and Jeremy) agree the problem we're trying
> to solve in this thread is this: people seem to want to have different
> properties on one "graph" than on another, even when the "graphs" happen to
> have the same triples.
>
> But why do they want this?   As I poke at that problem, either it turns out
> this functionality doesn't actually matter to them, or they need it because
> they are actually dealing with "graphs" which could at least potentially
> change over time.
>
> Do you have a use case (involving RDF on computers) for having different
> properties on different "graphs" (which happen to have the same triples),
> and which does not involve "graphs" changing over time?

(jumping in here...)

Related to change over time, but not quite the same: description of
Actions that may never happen, e.g. possible events (alongwith URLs +
info etc. that could be used to make them happen).

Dan
Received on Tuesday, 24 September 2013 13:38:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:44:23 UTC