W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > May 2012

Re: rdf11-concepts WD ready

From: Gavin Carothers <gavin@carothers.name>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 20:18:57 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPqY83x67rfupO4V=7aKT8+ObKwmZD5derQ0GXJ0FxD_MZ_+GQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
> More.
>
> 3
>
> "bijection" seems a bit heavy-mathematical for a primer (?). Maybe spell it out in more detail?

+1 if Pat thinks it's a bit mathematically heavy. (I had to look up
what it meant)

>
> 3.3
> "a datatype IRI being an IRI that establishes the literal value."
>
> Slightly misleading, could be read as saying that the datatype IRI alone determines the value. Maybe re-word like
> "a datatype IRI being an IRI that determines how the lexical form maps to the literal value."
>
> 3.4
>
> "The blank nodes in an RDF graph are drawn from an infinite set. "
>
> This seems a rather odd way to introduce the idea. I know it is formally correct, but it reads (to me) rather jarringly. (Which set? Why that set in particular? Etc..)
>
> Suggest something more like:
>
> "A blank node is a node which has no associated information or structure. In an RDF graph, a blank node represents an 'unknown' entity which may not have a name. In the abstract syntax, we specify only that blank nodes are taken from a fixed infinite set which is disjoint from the set of all IRIs and the set of all literals."
>
> also 3.4
>
> "Given two blank nodes, it is possible to determine whether or not they are the same."
>
> Um. I know I am always being acussed of thinking like a mathematician, but this doesn't make sense as stated. If there are TWO blank nodes, then obviously they aren't the same, because if they were there would only be one of them. I know it is hard to say this without using words like "identity", so I suggest simply omitting this sentence altogether, and rephrase the paragraph as something like

Even without thinking like a mathematician the spec itself happily
points out we aren't talking about "same" blank nodes but isomorphic
graphs.

>
> "RDF makes no reference to any internal structure or syntactic form of blank nodes. A blank node is simply a node in an RDF graph which has no label or other structure relevant to its RDF role."
>
> 3.5
>
> "This transformation does not change the meaning of an RDF graph, provided that the Skolem IRIs do not occur anywhere else."
>
> (I know we agreed on this wording long ago, but...) You might add something like
>
> "It does however permit the possibility of other graphs subsequently using the IRI to also refer to the same entity, which was not possible when the node was blank."
>
> 5.
> "The lexical-to-value mapping of a datatype is a set of pairs whose first element belongs to the lexical space of the datatype, and the second element belongs to thevalue space of the datatype:
>
>        • Each member of the lexical space is paired with (maps to) exactly one member of the value space."
>
> Why not bite the bullet and actually say that it is a functional mapping, or even that it is a function?  You do that for the datatype maps in 5.4 and it reads very naturally.
>
> Pat
>
>
> On May 29, 2012, at 5:34 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>
>> In case anyone wants to have a last-minute check of the RDF Concepts draft before it goes out for publication:
>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/rdf-concepts-WD2/rdf-concepts/index.html
>>
>> The publication date is still preliminary.
>>
>> Best,
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> 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, 30 May 2012 03:19:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:49 GMT