Re: RDF-ISSUE-142: rdfs:Graph ? comment [RDF Semantics]

I agree with Peter.
Pat


Peter Patel-Schneider , 10/1/2013 9:07 PM:
We now have a proposal from Jeremy on this issue.

The guts of the proposal is carried in one simple but pernicious word:  MAY.  The proposal would allow RDF implementations to behave differently from each other on the same entailment regime.   I view this as destroying the last bits of interoperability in RDF, and thus will be voting against it.
 
On the other hand, producing a new entailment regime that embodies the difference in behaviour that Jeremy appears to want would fit right into the way that divergence currently works in RDF.   I have no problem with the WG producing a WG note defining this entailment regime.  I would even be enthusiastic towards this note (but not to the point of writing any part of it) if it defined several entailment regimes that differ in their treatment of named graphs.
 
peter