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

Re: ISSUE-165: datatype map

From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 00:26:39 +0100
Message-ID: <52B22F2F.7080006@vu.nl>
To: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
CC: Peter Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Public RDF comments list <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Hi Michael,

The RDF WG resolved today during its telecon to close ISSUE-165 
(datatype map):

   RESOLUTION: the WG resolves to close this issue, with the rationale 
stated in the last
   response to the commenter [2], noting the objection from the 
commenter in the
   Transition Request, over objection of  Antoine Zimmermann.

I'm sorry that we couldn't reach consensus, but we are very grateful for 
the feedback you provided, which helped to make the document better.

I included [3] in the PR request as a good summary of the rationale 
underlying your objection, but feel free to suggest another email.

Best,
Guus

[1] http://www.w3.org/2013/12/18-rdf-wg-minutes.html
      (due to a server problem the formatted minutes are not yet available)
[2] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Dec/0098.html
[3] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Dec/0077.html


On 17-12-13 22:57, Michael Schneider wrote:
> 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 Wednesday, 18 December 2013 23:27:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 18 December 2013 23:27:06 UTC