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

Datatype Maps, was Re: Comments on Last-Call Working Draft of RDF 1.1 Semantics

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 20:47:45 -0400
Message-ID: <5265CB31.9080704@w3.org>
To: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, "public-rdf-comments@w3.org Comments" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Some clarifying questions, not an official response.

On 10/21/2013 07:29 PM, Michael Schneider wrote:
>
> URGENT ISSUES (DESIGN-RELATED):
>
> * ยง7: The notion of a "datatype map" has been effectively
>   replaced by a new notion of "recognized IRIs". No further
>   explanation is being given for this change. I have to note
>   that the notion of datatype maps has been used and is
>   deeply integrated in several of the other core Semantic Web
>   specifications: SPARQL 1.1 (in the SPARQL Entailment
>   Regimes spec), OWL 2 (specifically in the RDF-Based Semantics),
>   and RIF (in the RDF-and-OWL Compatibility spec), and it is
>   probably generally in quite wide use, for example in many
>   scientific papers and books. I believe the notion of a
>   datatype map as very basic and relevant for the stack of
>   semantics specifications that are based on the RDF Semantics
>   spec. In addition, I have never encountered any bigger problem
>   with this notion, even though I have been highly involved with
>   it during the years, in particular in my work as the editor
>   of the OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics. So under these circumstances,
>   I consider this change harmful for the foundation of the Semantic
>   Web, and with the lack of any rational the change even appears
>   to me to be an arbitrary choice. In my opinion, it goes too far
>   for a "1.1-style revision" of the RDF specification. In summary,
>   I cannot accept this change and ask the WG to bring back
>   the old notion of a datatype map.

Am I correct in understanding this is an editorial matter?  That is, no 
entailments would be different, no test cases would be different, and no 
software would have to change to remain in conformance?

Would it help to include a Note about what used to be called "Datatype 
Maps", so that people reading those papers, etc, and following the 
reference, and then looking at the more recent spec instead would be 
able to find them?

Finally, I'll note that we might want to use "At Risk" on this -- we 
could include a flag saying that we might bring back Datatype Maps 
during CR, although if (as I suspect) this is editorial anyway, this is 
probably unnecessary.

         -- Sandro
Received on Tuesday, 22 October 2013 00:47:52 UTC

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