W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > April 2011

Re: RDF Recommendation Set comments (re agenda for 6th April)

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 22:14:46 -0500
Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <88F619B8-3B02-42E4-A17B-73DD38C4DB4E@ihmc.us>
To: nathan@webr3.org

On Apr 5, 2011, at 6:57 PM, Nathan wrote:

> Hi All,
> Just some quick notes re the RDF Recommendation Set
> -> Semantics
>   - What happens to L-Base? personally I find it's style far more readable, will it be updated where needed? could it be used to define an abstract syntax?

I would tentatively suggest that what might be called an L-base-style presentation of RDF, ie RDF explained by translating it into conventional FOL (AKA an 'axiomatic semantics', a term I abhor) be provided as an *informative* appendix to the revized semantics document, but not absorbed into the main text. This will make those few with Nathan's taste happy, while protecting the great masses from the need to even look at, let alone understand, any actual formal logic. I volunteer to write a draft of the thing (I already have written it several times in various versions.) 

> -> Abstract Syntax and Concepts
>   - How does this tie in with the multiple serializations now?
>   - Examples in multiple formats like OWL?
>   - A proper abstract syntax?


>   - Merge with the semantics?
>   - Clean up on Fragments text (had request from JAR for this, and some related issues for fragment identifier semantics for Turtle etc)
> -> RDF Schema
>   - Taking in to account RDFS 3.0 from J Hendler?
>     http://www.w3.org/2009/12/rdf-ws/papers/ws31
>   - Seems to be split between RDF Semantics for RDFS entailment? The two are more coherent together (and again, hate to say it but L-Base style of writing the entailment for RDFS is really clear)

There are good reasons for having the model theory be normative, though. 

We might want to think about incorporating some version of sameAs into RDFS, as this seems to be fundamental to linked data and also widely misused. Having the real meaning of equality exposed in the RDF standard itself might be doing the world a favor. (?)


> -> Primer
>   - needed if we have well written serialization spec's w/ examples and a coherent "core" document?
>   - seems like a large domain w/ 3 syntaxes? (and ties to RDFa, SPARQL etc)
>   - any ties in with RDF API?
> -> Serializations
>  -> Turtle
>  -> RDF/XML
>  -> JSON
> -> Test Cases
>   - should be per serialization?
> - where do "graphs" surface in these specs?
> - can graphs even be a separate document?
> - linked data? do we cover or account for it, do a note, anything?
> Best,
> Nathan

IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2011 03:15:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:58 UTC