Re: Comments on Last-Call Working Draft of RDF 1.1 Semantics

Hi Guus,

sorry for the late reply, I was just drafting on a reply. I will send it 
tomorrow.

Concerning indication, I'm sorry to say that I cannot live with the 
response, but the main reason for this only became clear to me during my 
implementation attempt. I now believe that the current solution is 
technically broken and needs to be fixed, otherwise it will become a 
serious problem not only to RDF but also to other core Semantic Web 
Standards in the future. On the other hand, a fix would be pretty easy 
and would not have much impact on other parts of the Semantics document.

For the details, please wait for my reply tomorrow.

Regards,
Michael

Am 05.12.2013 12:29, schrieb Guus Schreiber:
> Hi Michael,
>
> Could you indicate whether you can live with the WG response on
> ISSUE-165 (see below)?
>
> Thanks in advance for your reply,
> Guus
>
> On 23-10-13 18:10, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> Michael, greetings.
>>
>> This is a response to your comments on RDF 1.1 Semantics, recorded by
>> the RDF WG as ISSUE-165 and ISSUE-166. I will deal with ISSUE-165
>> first and the various parts of ISSUE-166 in-line, below.
>>
>> Regarding ISSUE-165, this matter was debated extensively within the
>> WG, and most of your points were made during this discussion. (see
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Jun/0085.html
>> and subsequent threads.) The primary reason for the change was to
>> simplify the presentation of the RDF semantics, which was an
>> overarching goal of the WG. The actual mathematics has not altered,
>> as the 2004 semantics required D-interpretation mappings to conform
>> to the datatype map, so the datatype map is simply a part of (a
>> restriction of) the interpretation mapping itself. Once this is
>> recognized, it is clearly simpler to treat it in this way rather than
>> as a separate mapping. In addition, it had been noted by several
>> commentors that the 2004 definitions allowed for 'pathological' D
>> mappings, such as one which permutes the meanings of the XSD datatype
>> IRIs. It was felt that disallowing such maps was a laudable
>> by-product of the change. We also note that this change does not
>> alter any entailments.
>>
>> In response to your comment, I have extended the Change Note in
>> section 7 (and moved it to section 7.1) so that it reads as follows:
>>
>> "In the 2004 RDF 1.0 specification, the semantics of datatypes
>> referred to datatype maps. The current treatment subsumes datatype
>> maps into the interpretation mapping on recognized IRIs. The
>> <dfn>datatype map</dfn> corresponding to D is exactly the restriction
>> of a <a>D-interpretation</a> mapping to the set D of
>> <a>recognize</a>d datatypes. The 2004 definitions permitted
>> "non-standard" datatype maps (such as one that maps the IRI
>> '<code>http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#decimal</code>' to the
>> datatype identified by
>> <code>http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#gYearMonth</code>). Semantic
>> extensions based on such non-standard mappings are not sanctioned by
>> this specification."
>>
>> As you will see, this provides a linkable definition of the term
>> "datatype map" in terms of the new specification, as well as giving
>> more explanation and motivation for the change.
>>
>> The WG realizes that you may still have concerns regarding this
>> issue. If you feel it would be useful, we invite you to attend a WG
>> teleconference to discuss this issue in more depth.
>>
>
> [..]
>
>> Pat Hayes (for the RDF WG)
>>
>>>
>>> Best regards, Michael Schneider
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC
>> (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St.            (850)202 4416
>> office Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax FL
>> 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
>> (preferred) phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

Received on Thursday, 5 December 2013 21:10:56 UTC