RE: [comment] Formal Semantics, Section 4.3

Dear Stasinos, Dear POWDER Working Group!

After having looked into the new draft that you have sent to the list
earlier this day, I want to say that I am satisfied with your treatment of
my Last-Call Comment. 

Thank you for the work!

Best regards,
Michael Schneider 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Stasinos Konstantopoulos [mailto:konstant@iit.demokritos.gr]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 9:11 AM
>To: Michael Schneider
>Cc: public-powderwg@w3.org
>Subject: Re: [comment] Formal Semantics, Section 4.3
>
>Michael, hi again.
>
>On Thu Apr 30 21:48:10 2009 Michael Schneider said:
>
>> >I shall now proceed to respond to the first three points,
>> >hopefully clarifying how the POWDER extension realizes this.
>>
>> Short summary: I still believe that it is wrong. Please see my comment
>> inline.
>>
>> [longer explanation snipped]
>
>Thank you for your dilligence and for your explanations. This is a
>genioune bug that needs fixing.
>
>> Here are my concrete suggestions:
>>
>> (1) Do not longer talk about rdf:XMLLiterals, talk about /IRIs/
>> instead. In particular, talk about the 1:1 correspondence between
>> IRIs and their string representation. Consider, optionally, to cite
>> the IRI spec, where the string representation of IRIs is defined:
>> <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt>.
>
>Agreed, but I would prefer talking about URI references, following the
>RDF specs. In POWDER, regexps are meant to be matched against absolute
>Unicode strings after all canonicalization steps described in the DR doc
>have been applied. And I see in RDF Concepts [1] that URIrefs are
>Unicode and absolute, so that looks good enough.
>
>> (2) You should probably also avoid talking about
>> "equivalence relations", since for equivalence relations the
>> domain and range are normally the same, and, in particular, they
>> are always reflexive, which is clearly not the case for the
>> 1:1 correspondence between IRIs and their string representation
>> (otherwise, the 1:1 correspondence would be redundant). Saying
>> "1:1 correspondence" instead seems to me the better choice.
>
>Agreed.
>
>> (3) In addition, I think it isn't necessary to talk about
>> the "extension of" such a 1:1 correspondence. It seems redundant,
>> since we are talking about a binary relation, anyway. It might
>> also lead to confusion to RDF people, who are using the term
>> "extension" to distinguish between properties as individuals on
>> the one hand, and the extensionally defined binary relation
>> that is called the "property extension" on the other hand.
>
>Agreed.
>
>> I would consider all these changes purely bug fixes and editorial,
>> so no need to go through a fourth LC. :)
>
>Totally aggree.
>
>I will prepare a new draft of the Formal doc today.
>Once again thanking you for your efforts,
>s
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/#dfn-URI-
>reference

--
Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
Research Scientist, Dept. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
Email: michael.schneider@fzi.de
WWW  : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider
=======================================================================
FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe
Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor,
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer
Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
=======================================================================