Re: defining the semantics of lists

Am 12=2E Juni 2020 10:14:04 MESZ schrieb Patrick J Hayes <phayes@ihmc=2Eus=
>:
>
>
>> On Jun 10, 2020, at 5:02 PM, thomas l=C3=B6rtsch <tl@rat=2Eio> wrote:
>>=20
>=2E=2E=2E
>> The situation with lists is a classic SNAFU=2E But lists are the
>easiest part=2E Identifcation is broken and no one even cares anymore=2E
>"Just use AI to disambiguate" I hear=2E Reification is a mess (and RDF*
>in its current state might make it better, or worse) and Named Graphs
>have no semantics, so there is no sound meta modelling in RDF=2E

For better or worse, it was a nightly rant and my apologies to everybody w=
ho got hurt in the process!=20

>Whoa=2E Named graphs have a really crisp, IMO actually rather beautiful,
>semantics which makes the ideas of committment and publication
>semantically exact, using the fundamental idea of a performative=2E Read
>the paper that introduced the terminology for details:
>
>https://papers=2Essrn=2Ecom/sol3/papers=2Ecfm?abstract_id=3D3199260
>
>especially section 8=2E
>
>Unfortunately, this semantics (and indeed the very idea of named
>graphs) was never warranted by the W3C, so remains only a suggestion=2E
>It is still a damn good suggestion, however=2E=20

I was referring to Named Graphs as specified in RDF 1=2E1=2E I am aware th=
at you weren't amused that the WG ran with the name the paper coined withou=
t adopting the semantics it specified=2E It would probably be more accurate=
 to use the term Datasets when refering to Named Graphs as specified in RDF=
 1=2E1 and I'll try from now on=2E However when nowadays I come across the =
term Named Graphs without any further attributes I assume it to refer to Na=
med Graphs as implemented in SPARQL, specified in RDF 1=2E1 and ubiquitous =
in practical usage, again for better or worse=2E=20

Anyway, Named Graphs and Datasets will be the subject of another thread=2E=
 I'm still working through this one though and hope to post a wrap up of wh=
at I learned from it soon=2E=20

Thomas


>Pat