W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > February 2014

Re: RDF Primer Draft - comments

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 15:38:53 +0100
Message-ID: <52F8E47D.4030803@few.vu.nl>
To: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
CC: Public RDF comments list <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>, Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@bbc.co.uk>
Dear Guus, all,

Thanks you very much for the answers. The changes done have solved many of the issues I had raised!

My reaction on the few issues that are left (semi-)open:

>>
>> First a general editorial comment: I like the way notes flag slightly
>> less essential details. But in a text that is quite compact, having this
>> many notes may be counter-productive. Perhaps a couple of them can be
>> integrated in the main text, like the one on IRIs in section 1?
>
> I'll respond to this issue in more detail in the upcoming response to Tom, who made specific suggestions about the NOTEs.


Fine. I trust that handling Tom's comments on NOTEs will handle mine!


>> - 3.5: I know this section has been discussed, so perhaps my comments
>> will come across as a re-hash, or going against some recent agreement on
>> the text. Sorry if it's the case...
>> Even though I really want something on named graphs to be said, I really
>> find some points quite hard for a primer:
>>
>> -- "An RDF dataset may have [...] at most one default graph (i.e. a
>> graph without a name).": do we really need to mention the constraint on
>> the default graph, or even default graphs, in this Primer? I believe
>> that the text could work well without writing about these.
>
> We need to talk about them, but I agree we could be clearer. I suggest to talk about "at most one unnamed graph, and use the term "default" only in parentheses. See the new ED.


The trick on the "default" named Graph makes the text easier to swallow. At least for the people who are really to invest more time in understanding what it should be (but I won't re-write my point about just removing this from the Primer ;-) )


>
>> -- "RDF 1.1 does not specify a particular semantics for the relation
>> between the "graph name" and the graph": I know the RDF group has
>> discussed the issue at length, but this sentence sounds a bit like a
>> joke, without any further precision the motivation.
>> The issue is that the reference to [RDF11-MT,
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/CR-rdf11-mt-20131105/#rdf-datasets] doesn't
>> really work for me: I guess the solution is in the following sentence
>> there: "This allows IRI referring to other kinds of entities, such as
>> persons, to be used in a dataset to identify graphs of information
>> relevant to the entity denoted by the graph name IRI." But I can't parse
>> it and come with a concrete example (ie., an example with realistic IRIs
>> involved in realistic triples) that would show me what's at stake.
>
> I'm not sure i follow. This text is not in the Primer, nor in RDF Semantics. Could you clarify? Perhaps an older version?


In the version of the Primer that I've read, there was a NOTE with "However RDF 1.1 does not specify a particular semantics for the relation between the "graph name" and the graph" [RDF11-MT].". My problem was that this was a strange sentence, and that the reference given to the RDF semantics (that was my second quote) did little to explain it clearly. If all the NOTE is dropped then it's not a problem for the RDF Primer anymore.


>
>> -- "RDF provides no way to convey this semantic assumption [...] Those
>> readers will need to rely on out-of-band knowledge to interpret the
>> dataset in the intended way.": here "no way" and "out-of-band" read as
>> if it is impossible to convey the assumptions in RDF at all. As you've
>> discussed, it seems possible to devise appropriate vocabularies (even
>> though it's outside of the standard)...
>
> This wording is an essential part of the compromise we reached in the WG. I'd prefer to keep it this way. Pls check also the revised text in the new ED; maybe this helps. If you still think it is unacceptable for a Primer, feel free to say so and I will propose to reopen the (editorial) discussion in the WG.


It is not 'unacceptable', sure. But I don't see why a compromise would force you to stick with a wording so strong ("no way", "out-of-band") that it feels contradictory with the fact that the group does suggest solutions to the issue.
Granted, the options from [RDF11-DATASETS] are not part of the core standard. Yet they exist, and they are represented with RDF. So 'RDF provides no way to convey this semantic assumption' reads wrong.
Couldn't it be just replaced by "RDF provides no standard way to convey this semantic assumption"?


>
>> - 7. The reference to http://datahub.io/organization/lodcloud could
>> raise problems. The Data Hub's move from 'groups' to 'organizations' and
>> the fact that a dataset can be in only one organization has resulted
>> many datasets disappearing from their original grouping. I'm afraid the
>> same thing may have happened for the LODCloud group. The LODCloud group
>> still includes RDF datasets and can be used as a source of example, but
>> I believe it's not representing the most recent LOD Cloud as we know it
>> at http://lod-cloud.net/state/.
>
> OK,. For the moment I'll add an issue and discuss the best point to refer to in the WG.


OK. I'm really curious to see the outcome of the discussion!

cheers,

Antoine
Received on Monday, 10 February 2014 14:39:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 10 February 2014 14:39:25 UTC