Re: datatypes (Re: Review RDF 1.1 Semantics (ED 3rd June 2013))

The whole point of the message is to describe the situation in 2004 and to 
point out the difference between them in a way that hopefully makes it clear 
that nothing has really changed.

But let me put it bluntly,

     NOTHING HAS REALLY CHANGED IN DATATYPES BETWEEN 2004 and NOW!!!!!!!

Slightly less bluntly,

Datatype maps didn't get you anything.  They looked as if they provided an 
extra level of formality, but all that they did was require an extra level of 
magic.  Sure, this extra level of magic was generally benign, and invisible 
from users, but it certainly didn't match up with the way datatypes are 
defined in XML Schema datatypes the source of most of the usable RDF datatypes.

peter

On 06/18/2013 09:35 AM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
> Short answer: there is no argument in this answer. It simply describes the 
> situation in 2004 and the situation in 2013. I stick to my objection.
>
>
> In 2004: given a mapping D, I had a fully specified entailment regime.
>
> In June 2013: given a D, I have a whole family of entailment regimes, but if 
> I am provided with the mapping from IRIs in D to datatypes, I can find out 
> to what D-entailment I'm referred to. To make sure that we're always given 
> the complete entailment regiems, we add some text outside the formal 
> definition to the effect that the mapping MUST be given or known. This is 
> supposed to be understood as if there was a formal constraint on the 
> interpretation of the recognised IRIs.
>
> Not only the new design formally imposes to provide the mapping (so why not 
> give it a name and call it D) but it makes it a bit convoluted. I don't see 
> how this can possibly clarify anything. But in addition, it amounts to no 
> actual change in either implementation or formal results. So, if it does not 
> change anything, why the change? It's changing for the sake of changing.
>
> Why are you struggling so fiercefully to NOT use datatype map? You don't 
> have any evidence of any problem related to this. All modifications, if they 
> change the normative definitions, should come with a clear indication that 
> the change is required and/or beneficial.
> In your response hereafter, you do not provide any argument: you simply 
> describe the two situations. I know the situation.
>
>
> Le 15/06/2013 20:05, Peter F. Patel-Schneider a écrit :
>> Here is my reply on the datatypes portion of the thread.  I have
>> deliberately not included any of the previous discussion.
>>
>>
>> To have a datatype in 2004 you said:
>>
>> I'm doing D-entailment where D = {<foo:bar>,A} and A is my datatype
>> with lexical space, value space, and L2V map.
>>
>> Now you say
>>
>> I'm doing D-entailment where D = {foo:bar} and foo:bar is my datatype
>> with lexical space, value space, and L2V map.
>>
>> That's the entire change, modulo that for certain IRIs the datatype
>> is fixed by the RDF spec and now doesn't even have to be mentioned.
>>
>>
>> peter
>>
>>
>> PS:  Well, except that I think that the semantic conditions for
>> D-intepretations have to be strengthened to say that an IRI in D has
>> to denote the datatype that it identifies.  I don't believe that I
>> have seen a response on this point.
>
> That's what happens when one tries to fix something that is not broken. You 
> introduce problems and troubles. There was a clear, clean, straightforward 
> solution that would have led us to Last Call much faster: to not change D 
> beyond requiring that normative XSD, RDF and OWL datatypes must be 
> interpreted as they should be.
>
>
> I will make a concrete proposal indicating the kind of text I would like to 
> see.
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 19 June 2013 03:45:44 UTC