W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > December 2013

Re: Resolution needed: ISSUE-165: datatype map

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 22:57:38 +0100
Message-ID: <52B0C8D2.7050506@fzi.de>
To: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
CC: Peter Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Public RDF comments list <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Hello Guus, all,

I'm afraid to say that nothing has changed for me. Rather, after the 
last mail exchange between Pat and myself, which brought some (to me) 
surprising answers, I am now even more convinced that this change must 
not make its way into the final standard. I still consider it a 
substantial technical change rather than an editorial change, its 
formulation (even with the new textual changes) to be very confusing 
compared to the original version which I consider very clear, and I 
still do not see any need or motivation for the change to be made.

I do not see a requirement to restate my reasons for my objection, as I 
have stated them already in considerable detail in my previous mails.

Best regards,
Michael

Am 17.12.2013 14:48, schrieb Guus Schreiber:
> Dear Michael,
>
> Thank you for your comment concerning datatype maps, noted in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Oct/0067.html which
> was recorded by the WG as ISSUE-165
> (https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/165).
> You requested that we "bring back the old notion of a datatype map." In
> subsequent correspondence, we explained that the idea is in fact still
> present in the newer description, it being the restriction of a
> D-interpretation mapping to the set D of recognized datatype IRIs. Since
> your email suggested that this was not as clear as we had intended, we
> have re-worded parts of the relevant section 7 to give this as an
> explicit definition of the 2004 concept of 'datatype map' and added a
> sentence to clarify how other specifications and recommendations which
> refer to and impose extra conditions on datatype maps, can be
> interpreted as applying to the newer form of description. We also added
> a sentence clarifying how external specifications of datatypes can
> typically define both the type itself and the fixed interpretation of
> its referring IRI, using the "datatype map" language to help make the
> connection clear.
>
> You also objected that there was no motivation for making the change to
> the way that the semantics is described. Here we disagree. The newer
> style of description is more intuitive, less artificial, simpler (fewer
> semantic clauses, fewer new concepts introduced), more uniform with the
> rest of the semantic description (the mapping in question is simply a
> partial interpretation mapping) and more directly related to concepts in
> wide use in other Web standards and literature, such as the 2004
> Architecture of the Web (http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/) document. It
> also introduces the useful terminology of "recognition" of a datatype
> IRI, which is used throughout the document and also in the Concepts
> document, and which we anticipate will be useful more generally.
> We also note that the changes to which you objected are editorial and
> descriptive rather than substantive, since no semantic structures are
> changed, and no entailments are changed.
> Please check the wording changes referred to above in the latest version
> of the Semantics document, section 7, and respond to this list
> indicating whether this response resolves the issue raised by your
> comment, including [RESOLVED] in the subject line if it does resolve
> this to your satisfaction.
>
> In my role as chair I should add that I think this issue has been
> discussed now in sufficient depth. If you cannot live with the outcome
> please let is know, stating the reasons for your objection.
>
> Guus Schreiber
> on behalf of the RDF Working Group
Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2013 21:58:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 17 December 2013 21:58:04 UTC