W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: rdf:text review

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:32:41 +0100
Message-ID: <49F6E959.4070802@deri.org>
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
CC: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, 'RDF Data Access Working Group' <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Seaborne, Andy wrote:
>> -----Original Message----- From: Bijan Parsia
>> [mailto:bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk] Sent: 28 April 2009 10:30 To:
>> Seaborne, Andy Cc: Axel Polleres; 'RDF Data Access Working Group' 
>> Subject: Re: rdf:text review
>> 
>> On 28 Apr 2009, at 10:06, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
>> 
>>>> -----Original Message----- From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org
>>>> [mailto:public-rdf-dawg- request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Axel
>>>> Polleres Sent: 28 April 2009 09:37 To: 'RDF Data Access Working
>>>> Group' Subject: rdf:text review
>>>> 
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> 
>>>> I would like to encourage everybody who has comments on it to
>>>> read Andy's rdf:text review, such that we can put it forward to
>>>> OWL+RIF.
>>>> 
>>>> Unless severe additional new comments or concerns come up, I'd 
>>>> like to propose to put it forward "as is" as official review of
>>>> from the SPARQL WG to get the process of fixing the concerns
>>>> going, ideally after today's telecon or at least after the F2F
>>>> (in case we can't agree quickly today, we should have some
>>>> discussion about it at the f2f).
>>> The text sent should have some proposals for changes to the 
>>> rdf:text (at least in outline) to address the issues raised
>>> because some of these issues have been around for sometime now
>>> (Dec 2008). The current draft reply has not got that far and
>>> certainly not to WG consensus.  See my other message for the
>>> beginning of this with areas needing text changes.
>>> 
>>> It would be good to have your comments on the material so far as 
>>> you are an editor of rdf:text so, hopefully, we can reduce the 
>>> number of cycles needed
>> I've had some conversation with Boris about Andy's comments and he 
>> was thinking that not much,
> 
> It's hardly a lot of changes but the use of the entailment extension
> point should go in the rdf:text doc as should the prohibition (if
> that's what we want to propose) on appearing in SPARQL results.
> 
>> if any changes were actually needed to rif:text.
> 
> :-)
> 
>> It would be good to get clear on this *before* sending comments.
>> Perhaps, Axel, Andy, Boris and I could telcon at some point?
> 
> This is to be a WG response, not my personal comments and I note
> Steve is also reviewing the text.  Could the comments go to the WG
> list?

My idea was:

Get the SPARQL WG comment out quickly and then have a telecon, as to how 
to respond and fix the document where we'd certainly want Andy in, but 
also others like steve if they had something to add.

As for concrete suggestions for changing the response, let me quickly 
swap chair-hat-off/DERI-hat-on,  I think the major issue raised by Andy 
could be addressed by adding right after the "Short Version" section in 
Andy's comment another subsection "Suggested change" as follows:

=====================================================================
== Suggested change ==

Additional semantic equivalences implied by rdf:text should only affect 
D-entailment (where rdf:text is part of the datatype map D following 
[1]). Thus, the document should not talk about "semantic equivalence" in 
general terms but just in terms of D-entailment. This should fix the 
main problem raised and would only affect SPARQL engines that follow a 
(yet to be defined - and thus not affecting forward compatibility) 
D-entailment regime [2].
=====================================================================

In my optinion, this also would address the concern on the language tag 
+ datatype invariant, the details of this are probably better discussed 
in a conf. call as suggested above after we sent the comment.

After short discussion with the co-editors of rdf:text, I have 
implemented a strawman fix of this already on the wiki version of 
rdf:text [3].


best,
Axel

1. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#dtype_interp
2. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#sparqlBGPExtend
3. 
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=InternationalizedStringS%3E%20pec&diff=22506&oldid=22462

> Andy
> 
>> Cheers, Bijan.
> 


-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres
Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland,
Galway
email: axel.polleres@deri.org  url: http://www.polleres.net/
Received on Tuesday, 28 April 2009 11:33:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:38 GMT