Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Decouple semantics from data model #24

Open
dbooth-boston opened this issue Dec 7, 2018 · 0 comments
Open

Decouple semantics from data model #24

dbooth-boston opened this issue Dec 7, 2018 · 0 comments
Labels
Category: language features For language features of RDF itself -- model and syntax standards Standardization should address this

Comments

@dbooth-boston
Copy link
Collaborator

"allow different profiles that plug in different semantics.
Open world assumption doesn't fit your use case? Use a profile that has
NAF or WFS, or answer-sets, or production rules, or probabilistic, or
some kind of procedural hybrid. Or just ignore this part as I guess the
vast majority of triplestores currently do."
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2018Nov/0045.html

"practices like closing the world to validate anything you let in/out of your system is a perfectly fine thing and to me at least a total no-brainer. Such practices should be supported more fluidly through e.g. a more powerful graph naming mechanism (and better meta modeling facilities in general)"
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2018Nov/0276.html
"[Semantic should] be decoupled in a future version. Those who find
these semantics useful should continue to use them, but there are plenty
of use cases where the given semantics are not just unnecessary but also
an obstacle (performance of inferencing, merging of blank nodes etc). . . .
IMHO a better stacking of RDF would have a simplified RDF (maybe called
Graph Data Framework) at its very bottom, i.e. a definition of graphs
that consist of triples that consist of subject, predicate and object,
and (hopefully) better support for reified statements, named graphs and
lists. These can be formalized entirely as a data structure/API".
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2018Nov/0215.html

"I think the most reasonable evolution is to restructure the layers
so that RDFS/OWL can continue to work as now, while providing a standard
foundation for those who prefer closed world semantics etc. One way to
approach this would be to have a core model that just describes the
syntax of graphs but very little semantics. The JavaScript API comes pretty close to how such a core specification could look like (including the treatment of bnodes): https://rdf.js.org/
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2018Nov/0268.html

@dbooth-boston dbooth-boston added the Category: language features For language features of RDF itself -- model and syntax label Dec 8, 2018
@dbooth-boston dbooth-boston added standards Standardization should address this and removed standards Standardization should address this labels Mar 11, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Category: language features For language features of RDF itself -- model and syntax standards Standardization should address this
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant