- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 22:38:37 -0400
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, public-rdf-comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
On 06/15/2013 10:01 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> David Booth wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to propose a small change in section >>>>>>>>>>>> on Skolemization: >>>>>>>>>>>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#section-skolemization [ . . . ] > I do not understand in what sense RFC2119 language can be applied to > a definition. What behavior would we be prohibiting? it isn't about behavior. it is about conformance to a definition. the RDF specification defines what constitutes RDF, and uses conformance terms as in the following sentence: "IRIs in the RDF abstract syntax MUST be absolute, and MAY contain a fragment identifier." Those conformance terms must be normative to have effect. similarly the definition of RDF skolemization needs to be normative, with conformance terms, for the exact same reason. if someone transformed _:b :foo :bar . into :bar :foo :bar . then they should be prohibited from calling it RDF skolemization, just as people are currently prohibited from calling the following RDF: "literal" _:bnode "oops" . David
Received on Sunday, 16 June 2013 02:39:05 UTC