I was asked recently to justify Kowari's decision to maintain blank-node identity across an insert/select command. My response was along the lines of treating kowari as a 4-graph partitionable as rdf-compliant 3-graphs (actually technically a superset as we don't restrict the domains of subjects and predicates as rdf does). At this point the entire 4-graph is within the scope of the existential, and consequently it is valid to retain blank-node identity between the rdf-partitions (kowari models).

However it did send me back to the RDF-SEMANTICS spec again where I found the following in 1.5. Blank Nodes as Existential Variables

This effectively treats all blank nodes as having the same meaning as existentially quantified variables in the RDF graph in which they occur, and which have the scope of the entire graph. In terms of the N-Triples syntax, this amounts to the convention that would place the quantifiers just outside, or at the outer edge of, the N-Triples document corresponding to the graph. This in turn means that there is a subtle but important distinction in meaning between the operation of forming the union of two graphs and that of forming the merge. The simple union of two graphs corresponds to the conjunction ( 'and' ) of all the triples in the graphs, maintaining the identity of any blank nodes which occur in both graphs. This is appropriate when the information in the graphs comes from a single source, or where one is derived from the other by means of some valid inference process, as for example when applying an inference rule to add a triple to a graph. Merging two graphs treats the blank nodes in each graph as being existentially quantified in that graph, so that no blank node from one graph is allowed to stray into the scope of the other graph's surrounding quantifier. This is appropriate when the graphs come from different sources and there is no justification for assuming that a blank node in one refers to the same entity as any blank node in the other.(emphasis added) Later in 2. Simple Entailment between RDF graphs we come across the Merging Lemma

Merging lemma. The merge of a set S of RDF graphs is entailed by S, and entails every member of S. [Proof] This means that a set of graphs can be treated as equivalent to its merge, i.e. a single graph, as far as the model theory is concerned. This can be used to simplify the terminology somewhat: for example, the definition of S entails E, above, can be paraphrased by saying that S entails E when every interpretation which satisfies S also satisfies E. The example given in section 1.5 shows that it is not the case, in general, that the simple union of a set of graphs is entailed by the set. The main result for simple RDF inference is:This is relevant because an alternative view of kowari is as a set of named graphs.

Last time I read this document was when I first started with Tucana, and hadn't heard of RDF before. It is amazing how much more understandable the rdf-semantics document once you've spent some time working with RDF.

## No comments:

Post a Comment