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

Re: RDF Semantics - Definition of "Interpretation" is missing (ISSUE-159)

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 08:42:16 -0700
Message-ID: <52581C58.1060704@gmail.com>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
CC: public-rdf-comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Hi David:

The RDF working group has received your comment, and is tracking it as our 
ISSUE-159.

You should be receiving an official reply in a short while.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
for the RDF working group

On 10/09/2013 07:41 PM, David Booth wrote:
> Regarding
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-rdf11-mt-20130723/
>
> Section 4 of the RDF Semantics is careful to define all of the major terms 
> that are used within the document . . . except one. AFAICT, the general 
> notion of an "interpretation" is nowhere defined.  Later in the document, 
> specific kinds of interpretations are defined, such as Simple 
> Interpretations, RDF Interpretations and RDFS Interpretations.  But AFAICT a 
> definition of the general notion of an interpretation is completely absent.
>
> The 2004 version of the semantics had a very nice explanation of the notion 
> of interpretations:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#interp
> and it had a glossary definition of the term:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#glossInterpretation
>
> I don't know why the current draft eliminated those sections, but somehow 
> the RDF Semantics needs to explain what is meant by an "interpretation", 
> since the notion is central to the semantics.
>
> I would suggest restoring the explanation from the 2004 version, but I would 
> be fine with some other replacement instead.
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
Received on Friday, 11 October 2013 15:42:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:29:58 UTC